Fintech

Crypto scores a victory in Senate infrastructure bill battle

The industry flexed its lobbying muscles, and after some wrangling, an industry-friendly definition of "broker" emerged that exempted many categories of cryptocurrency participants.

Bitcoin and ethereum with gavel

Crypto is in for the fight of its life over the Senate infrastructure bill.

Image: Executium/Unsplash

Senators working on a roughly $1 trillion infrastructure bill thought it'd be a good idea to tap the fast-growing crypto industry to help pay for it. But then the crypto world said: Not so fast.

The first major battle between crypto and the Washington establishment offered glimpses of the major issues at play — and how crypto can actually fight back.

The crypto-related proposals would have raised roughly $28 billion to pay for the legislation, mainly through taxes. The most controversial proposal would have required miners and node operators, whose work undergirds the blockchains that cryptocurrencies rely on, to report crypto transactions like brokerages. That quickly ignited a host of technical, privacy and other concerns.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation warned that the proposal "could create new surveillance requirements for many within the blockchain ecosystem." And the crypto industry pushed back hard. It appeared to score a small victory after the bill's language was amended to clarify that miners and node operators would not be classified as brokers.

But that was a "fire drill" in a protracted process in which the industry must engage with a Congress that "did not fully appreciate the complexity and nuance of the technology they seek to regulate,'' crypto experts Joe Carlasare and Amanda Cavaleri wrote in Bitcoin Magazine.

Indeed, a last-minute amendment from Sens. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, Mark Warner, D-Va. and Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz. would have broadened the definition of "broker" in a way that drew sharp rebukes. Andreessen Horowitz, a top venture capital firm with substantial crypto investments, opposed the new language, but the White House has backed the three senators' version, according to CNBC.

After a weekend of wrangling that saw multiple revisions of the Portman-Warner-Sinema version, Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., in a joint press conference Monday with Sen. Cynthia Lummis, R-Wyoming, announced that there was "a very broad maybe universal agreement that centralized digital asset exchanges behaving as brokers should be required to report transactions, just like other kinds of brokers already do."

But he said their proposal "makes clear that a broker means only those persons who conduct transactions on exchanges where consumers buy, sell and trade digital assets" and ensures that the bill does not sweep in software developers, personal transaction validators, node operators, or other non-brokers."

Lummis said it was important to "ensure that people aren't trying to avoid taxes by sheltering their money in digital assets, but we have to do it in a way that doesn't stifle innovation."

The agreement on more crypto-friendly language came after considerable lobbying and campaigning. Fight for the Future's "Red Alert" campaign issued a stern warning, seeking to rally crypto supporters to shape the final bill. The campaign urged supporters to endorse the first proposed amendment to replace a "provision that's so poorly written it could crush the cryptocurrency ecosystem" and ask their senators to oppose the Portman-Warner-Sinema version.

Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong weighed in, tweeting out the EFF's warning and the Red Alert campaign, and railing against "a hastily conceived" proposal that "could have a profound negative impact on crypto in the U.S. and unintentionally push more innovation offshore." (Note: Yes, this is no-politics-at-work Brian Armstrong; in his controversial memo, he carved out an exception for issues that directly affect the company's work.)

Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said Monday that her department would support the compromise language; the White House had earlier supported the Portman-Warner-Sinema version. The amendment, however, required, unanimous consent of the Senate to get added, and opposition by Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., over an unrelated issue torpedoed it. Jerry Brito, executive director of Coin Center, a crypto industry trade group, said on Twitter that his members would seek to amend the infrastructure bill in the House.

The battle is just getting started. Democratic Rep. Don Beyer of Virginia has a crypto-regulation bill in the works in the House. And regulators remain eager to come up with new rules for how the industry should operate. But the infrastructure-bill conflict also demonstrated crypto's power.

"It's always tempting to make fun of crypto bros," Slate's Jordan Weissmann wrote. "It's clear, though, that they've learned to flex some lobbying muscle."

Update: This story was updated Aug. 9, 2021, to include new information about the amendment.

Note: A version of this story appeared in the Protocol | Fintech newsletter. Subscribe now if you're not already getting it.

Climate

This carbon capture startup wants to clean up the worst polluters

The founder and CEO of point-source carbon capture company Carbon Clean discusses what the startup has learned, the future of carbon capture technology, as well as the role of companies like his in battling the climate crisis.

Carbon Clean CEO Aniruddha Sharma told Protocol that fossil fuels are necessary, at least in the near term, to lift the living standards of those who don’t have access to cars and electricity.

Photo: Carbon Clean

Carbon capture and storage has taken on increasing importance as companies with stubborn emissions look for new ways to meet their net zero goals. For hard-to-abate industries like cement and steel production, it’s one of the few options that exist to help them get there.

Yet it’s proven incredibly challenging to scale the technology, which captures carbon pollution at the source. U.K.-based company Carbon Clean is leading the charge to bring down costs. This year, it raised a $150 million series C round, which the startup said is the largest-ever funding round for a point-source carbon capture company.

Keep Reading Show less
Michelle Ma

Michelle Ma (@himichellema) is a reporter at Protocol covering climate. Previously, she was a news editor of live journalism and special coverage for The Wall Street Journal. Prior to that, she worked as a staff writer at Wirecutter. She can be reached at mma@protocol.com.

Sponsored Content

Great products are built on strong patents

Experts say robust intellectual property protection is essential to ensure the long-term R&D required to innovate and maintain America's technology leadership.

Every great tech product that you rely on each day, from the smartphone in your pocket to your music streaming service and navigational system in the car, shares one important thing: part of its innovative design is protected by intellectual property (IP) laws.

From 5G to artificial intelligence, IP protection offers a powerful incentive for researchers to create ground-breaking products, and governmental leaders say its protection is an essential part of maintaining US technology leadership. To quote Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo: "intellectual property protection is vital for American innovation and entrepreneurship.”

Keep Reading Show less
James Daly
James Daly has a deep knowledge of creating brand voice identity, including understanding various audiences and targeting messaging accordingly. He enjoys commissioning, editing, writing, and business development, particularly in launching new ventures and building passionate audiences. Daly has led teams large and small to multiple awards and quantifiable success through a strategy built on teamwork, passion, fact-checking, intelligence, analytics, and audience growth while meeting budget goals and production deadlines in fast-paced environments. Daly is the Editorial Director of 2030 Media and a contributor at Wired.
Workplace

Why companies cut staff after raising millions

Are tech firms blowing millions in funding just weeks after getting it? Experts say it's more complicated than that.

Bolt, Trade Republic, HomeLight, and Stord all drew attention from funding announcements that happened just weeks or days before layoffs.

Photo: Pulp Photography/Getty Images

Fintech startup Bolt was one of the first tech companies to slash jobs, cutting 250 employees, or a third of its staff, in May. For some workers, the pain of layoffs was a shock not only because they were the first, but also because the cuts came just four months after Bolt had announced a $355 million series E funding round and achieved a peak valuation of $11 billion.

“Bolt employees were blind sided because the CEO was saying just weeks ago how everything is fine,” an anonymous user wrote on the message board Blind. “It has been an extremely rough day for 1/3 of Bolt employees,” another user posted. “Sadly, I was one of them who was let go after getting a pay-raise just a couple of weeks ago.”

Keep Reading Show less
Nat Rubio-Licht

Nat Rubio-Licht is a Los Angeles-based news writer at Protocol. They graduated from Syracuse University with a degree in newspaper and online journalism in May 2020. Prior to joining the team, they worked at the Los Angeles Business Journal as a technology and aerospace reporter.

Climate

The fight to define the carbon offset market's future

The world’s largest carbon offset issuer is fighting a voluntary effort to standardize the industry. And the fate of the climate could hang in the balance.

It has become increasingly clear that scaling the credit market will first require clear standards and transparency.

Kevin Frayer/Getty Images

There’s a major fight brewing over what kind of standards will govern the carbon offset market.

A group of independent experts looking to clean up the market’s checkered record and the biggest carbon credit issuer on the voluntary market is trying to influence efforts to define what counts as a quality credit. The outcome could make or break an industry increasingly central to tech companies meeting their net zero goals.

Keep Reading Show less
Lisa Martine Jenkins

Lisa Martine Jenkins is a senior reporter at Protocol covering climate. Lisa previously wrote for Morning Consult, Chemical Watch and the Associated Press. Lisa is currently based in Brooklyn, and is originally from the Bay Area. Find her on Twitter ( @l_m_j_) or reach out via email (ljenkins@protocol.com).

Policy

White House AI Bill of Rights lacks specific guidance for AI rules

The document unveiled today by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy is long on tech guidance, but short on restrictions for AI.

While the document provides extensive suggestions for how to incorporate AI rights in technical design, it does not include any recommendations for restrictions on the use of controversial forms of AI.

Photo: Ana Lanza/Unsplash

It was a year in the making, but people eagerly anticipating the White House Bill of Rights for AI will have to continue waiting for concrete recommendations for future AI policy or restrictions.

Instead, the document unveiled today by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy is legally non-binding and intended to be used as a handbook and a “guide for society” that could someday inform government AI legislation or regulations.

Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights features a list of five guidelines for protecting people in relation to AI use:

Keep Reading Show less
Kate Kaye

Kate Kaye is an award-winning multimedia reporter digging deep and telling print, digital and audio stories. She covers AI and data for Protocol. Her reporting on AI and tech ethics issues has been published in OneZero, Fast Company, MIT Technology Review, CityLab, Ad Age and Digiday and heard on NPR. Kate is the creator of RedTailMedia.org and is the author of "Campaign '08: A Turning Point for Digital Media," a book about how the 2008 presidential campaigns used digital media and data.

Latest Stories
Bulletins