1/ Why is consequential tax policy being made in a rushed infrastructure bill? Here's the answer. IRS already has authority to require reporting and it had plans in place to issue new rules on crypto. But someone wanted to count the revenue from that in the infrastructure bill.
74
406
76
1,276
2/ Don't think they expected the crypto community to object, much ess succeed in getting senators to introduce an amendment to limit the definition of "broker" to, you know, people who actually broker.
5
32
0
327
3/ Now I think they're concerned their original plans are in jeopardy. They shouldn't be. The crypto industry has been pleading with the IRS for clear reporting rules for years. barmstrong.medium.com/coinba…
1
22
2
304
4/ The Warner amendment looks to be trying to save Treasury's bacon, but it's a technical disaster. It's what you get when you rush a complicated and nuanced policy question this way. We may be seriously damaging the future of American innovation for an accounting gimmick.
13
75
6
492
5/ Here's the source of the quotes above FYI. I will stress, though, the headline is wrong. The Warner amendment is NOT a compromise. It would make the tax provision WORSE than if we had no amendments at all. wsj.com/articles/cryptocurre…

12:21 PM · Aug 6, 2021

8
53
7
371
And it should go without saying... CALL YOUR SENATORS! Tell them to vote NO on the Warner-Portman amendment and YES on the Wyden-Lummis-Toomey amendment.
29
151
21
696
Replying to @jerrybrito
Worse for POS. Jury out on effect on POW.
1
0
0
0
Replying to @jerrybrito
Is you main reason for calling it worse than the original bill because it implicitly includes stakers in a PoS system as brokers? Other reasons?
0
0
0
2
Treasury no bueno
0
0
0
0
Replying to @jerrybrito
I’m not scared even in the slightest.
0
0
0
0
Replying to @jerrybrito
Dear @SenRubioPress & @SenRickScott I do hope you are focusing in on this, get the lowdown from @SenLummis - Support USA innovation
0
0
0
0