As Congress seeks to refine the federal government's stance on cryptocurrency, it’s crucial to ensure that policies do not prioritize bureaucratic interests over those of Bitcoiners. While Bitcoin itself remains impervious to regulation, federal control could impede the process of orange-pilling nocoiners by making Bitcoin less accessible and practical to use. Bitcoiners should advocate for legislation that simplifies the relationship between the cryptocurrency industry and the U.S. government while safeguarding against bureaucratic overreach.
The cryptocurrency legislation proposed by Senators Cynthia Lummis and Kirsten Gillibrand marks a significant milestone for the industry. Recognizing Bitcoin’s role in the U.S. economy, the bill seeks to address various gray areas that have complicated government interactions with the Bitcoin business. Key provisions include designating the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) as the primary regulatory body for cryptocurrency, defining Bitcoin as a commodity rather than a security, and enhancing market transparency for stablecoins. This regulatory clarity could foster greater innovation and adoption of Bitcoin in everyday transactions.
However, Bitcoiners should approach this new policy direction with caution. While the Lummis-Gillibrand bill introduces a regulatory framework, it lacks protections against bureaucratic overreach. Without such safeguards, the bill risks allowing federal agencies to exercise undue influence over the cryptocurrency industry. The framework may end up being as flexible as a blank canvas for bureaucrats, leading to potential mismanagement and stifling the very ethos of decentralization that Bitcoin champions.
The recent push for cryptocurrency legislation appears to be driven by investors seeking government intervention following the recent liquidation crisis. Proponents of increased regulation are not the everyday HODLers who cherish the principle of decentralized wealth and financial freedom. Instead, they are speculators hoping to capitalize on altcoins to expand their fiat wealth. Their calls for regulation, presented as industry consensus, inadvertently draw Bitcoiners into a regulatory environment despite their non-involvement in the crisis. In a truly trustless system like Bitcoin's, regulation is unnecessary, and extending it to the broader cryptocurrency market is equally redundant. Consumers naturally shy away from scams, and as altcoin fads fade, Bitcoin's durability will become evident, guiding investors towards more stable investments.
The danger of seeking government regulation as a solution lies in the potential erosion of financial freedom. As Bitcoin becomes more integrated into the market, especially as a payment option, businesses rather than Bitcoin itself could become regulatory targets. Most businesses would avoid the risk of government penalties, potentially limiting Bitcoin’s usability. Bitcoin was designed as an escape from poor federal economic management. With historic inflation making everyday life increasingly expensive and the Federal Reserve's corrective measures threatening to trigger a recession, granting the government more control over Bitcoin access is unwise.
The Lummis-Gillibrand bill, while a positive step in recognizing Bitcoin as a valuable asset, must include provisions that protect the industry from regulators. This includes affirming the right to own and keep Bitcoin, limiting the scope of executive agencies within the regulatory framework, and upholding financial privacy rights as guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment. Such protections would help regulate the regulators, preventing overreach and supporting financial privacy and property rights in their purest forms.
Bitcoin is not just an investment; it is a movement advocating for accessible financial freedom, free from manipulation by any government, company, group, or individual. Investors who call for regulation miss the fundamental purpose of Bitcoin. Bitcoiners must HODL their assets not only as a superior store of value but also politically HODL, supporting policies that promote clarity, innovation, and market openness while resisting those that allow bureaucratic overreach. Without this vigilance, Bitcoiners risk losing the culture war between the Federal Reserve and true financial liberty.
