The Future of Cryptocurrency Is Being Decided in Biden's Infrastructure Bill (vice.com) 110
Two competing amendments to the Senate's infrastructure bill may shape the future of cryptocurrency in the United States as senators fight over who must be subject to new tax reporting requirements. Motherboard reports: One proposal wants to exempt miners, hardware manufacturers, and developers, putting the focus on centralized cryptocurrency exchanges and trading apps. But the Biden administration has thrown its weight behind another amendment that would grant exemption only to those behind so-called proof-of-work cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin, but not other networks said to be more environmentally friendly because they don't consume as much electricity to validate transactions.
The infrastructure bill, which promises public spending on major projects like new roads and bridge repairs, wouldn't appear to have anything to do with cryptocurrency. But the Congress figured that "crypto brokers" could be squeezed for $28 billion in taxes over a decade to foot part of the bill. The proposal immediately caused a furor, with crypto influencers prompting their followers to call their senators and industry stakeholders applying pressure. The definition of brokers in the original bill -- any person who (for consideration) is responsible for regularly providing any service effectuating transfers of digital assets on behalf of another person -- was so broad that it meant pretty much anyone that makes a cryptocurrency tick -- node operators, miners, validators, or services that stake digital assets -- would have to report to the I.R.S. the information on their "customers." Cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin are designed to be non-custodial and pseudonymous, so that requirement would be nearly impossible to satisfy for much of the industry, Olya Veramchuk, director of tax solutions at blockchain firm Lukka, told Motherboard.
On Wednesday, three senators -- Ron Wyden (D., Ore.), Pat Toomey (R., Pa.), and Cynthia Lummis (R., Wyo.) -- put forward an amendment to narrow the definition of a crypto broker down to those who are custodial and actually hold information on their customers, such as cryptocurrency exchanges like Coinbase or trading apps like Robinhood, granting exemption to everyone else. But an amendment proposed by Senators Rob Portman (R. Oh) and Mark Warner (D., Va) on Thursday, favored by the Biden administration, grants an exemption from the tax reporting obligation to only a segment of the crypto industry, resting on a major technical difference in blockchain design between proof-of-network and proof-of-stake. [...] The vote on rival amendments is expected to take place on Saturday. A proof-of-work model is when a network, such as Bitcoin and Dogecoin, requires miners to take care of the task of validating transactions using huge amounts of electricity for a reward in the form of newly-minted coins. "Others, like Polkadot and Cardano, require 'staking' (hence, proof-of-stake) -- which is a process of pledging funds to the network and getting semi-randomly called to validate transactions," notes Motherboard. "Validators are rewarded with newly-minted coins."
The infrastructure bill, which promises public spending on major projects like new roads and bridge repairs, wouldn't appear to have anything to do with cryptocurrency. But the Congress figured that "crypto brokers" could be squeezed for $28 billion in taxes over a decade to foot part of the bill. The proposal immediately caused a furor, with crypto influencers prompting their followers to call their senators and industry stakeholders applying pressure. The definition of brokers in the original bill -- any person who (for consideration) is responsible for regularly providing any service effectuating transfers of digital assets on behalf of another person -- was so broad that it meant pretty much anyone that makes a cryptocurrency tick -- node operators, miners, validators, or services that stake digital assets -- would have to report to the I.R.S. the information on their "customers." Cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin are designed to be non-custodial and pseudonymous, so that requirement would be nearly impossible to satisfy for much of the industry, Olya Veramchuk, director of tax solutions at blockchain firm Lukka, told Motherboard.
On Wednesday, three senators -- Ron Wyden (D., Ore.), Pat Toomey (R., Pa.), and Cynthia Lummis (R., Wyo.) -- put forward an amendment to narrow the definition of a crypto broker down to those who are custodial and actually hold information on their customers, such as cryptocurrency exchanges like Coinbase or trading apps like Robinhood, granting exemption to everyone else. But an amendment proposed by Senators Rob Portman (R. Oh) and Mark Warner (D., Va) on Thursday, favored by the Biden administration, grants an exemption from the tax reporting obligation to only a segment of the crypto industry, resting on a major technical difference in blockchain design between proof-of-network and proof-of-stake. [...] The vote on rival amendments is expected to take place on Saturday. A proof-of-work model is when a network, such as Bitcoin and Dogecoin, requires miners to take care of the task of validating transactions using huge amounts of electricity for a reward in the form of newly-minted coins. "Others, like Polkadot and Cardano, require 'staking' (hence, proof-of-stake) -- which is a process of pledging funds to the network and getting semi-randomly called to validate transactions," notes Motherboard. "Validators are rewarded with newly-minted coins."
And by squeezed (Score:4, Insightful)
You can't have profits until you stop holding (Score:2, Insightful)
What they mean is they're going to have to actually pay the taxes on the profits of the assets that they're holding
How do you have any profits while you hold something? You only have profits (or losses) if you sell.
Is it fair to tax someone on 1 million dollars worth of Bitcoin today if the value goes to 0 tomorrow before they can get anything for it?
If you were just trying to say "they have to pay taxes on profits they make selling" - well, everyone pretty much does that already! I've had to pay taxes on
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
No dumbass, if it were regularly exchanged its value would go down. If what you're saying was correct it would mean the Mona Lisa is worth nothing because it is rarely traded. According to your "tax the value of assets" model, Leonardo Da Vinci would have been forced to immediately sell the Mona Lisa because people wanted it. If he didn't sell it he would have to pay taxes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: You can't have profits until you stop holding (Score:3)
Yea capital gains if it is only charged when you sell or trade something. Thatâ(TM)s already the law, so not sure what you are talking about. Try to keep up man, rsilvergun was talking about charging people while they own it. Yes if you sell something, you should pay a tax on the profits or capital gains thatâ(TM)s already the law man and not at issue here. Welcome to already reality.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: You can't have profits until you stop holding (Score:2)
How would you feel about a happiness tax? People who are generally happier than others should have to pay a tax. There are many ways to measure it. We could just classify people based on what areas of life they are seeing fulfillment in and charge them a tax for that. Itâ(TM)s unfair that some people get to hoard all the happiness while others have to suffer. Think of all the advantages people who hoard happiness have. It just is not fair.
Re: You can't have profits until you stop holding (Score:2)
Yeah it does. The happier you are the more productive you can be. Besides, the rich have to follow laws. You are saying reducing their money is a preventative action to block them from wielding power over others? People who are happy can do harm to others too, to stay happy.
Re: (Score:2)
The valuation of crypto is entirely due to speculators keeping the price high because there's always one more sucker to unload your bags to. Very few transactions are done with cryptocurrencies for goods or services; it's all just speculation.
Re: (Score:2)
It has value because it's regularly exchanged for goods and services. Specifically drugs, money laundering and Ransom payments. But it is very much exchanged for those things and in sufficiently large quantities to attract speculators.
Contrary to fictional pictures painted by the entertainment industry, very little, percentage-wise, of crypto transactions are for the illegal things you discuss. Yes, it's happened, but it's no worse than cash in this regard. This is a cost of the right that people have to engage in commerce anonymously or psuedo-anonymously, which both crypto and cash honor.
In fact, the colonial pipeline ransomware recovery, probably ended the use of bitcoin for ransomware, because the government was basically able to rec
Re: (Score:1)
Can you name a specific country that taxes unrealised gains instead of just saying 'other parts of the world', because that sounds pretty crazy and it'd be good to read up on it and understand better.
Canada is one of them - I think UK as well (though don't quote me on that). There's probably others.
In Canada, what the parent describes is generally how taxes work - you pay immediately taxes on any gains in value, and you can offset any other gains (now or in the future) with any current/prior losses, but only if you haven't "realized" those gains (in the parent's example, if you cashed out your stocks, they're now "realized gains")
There is also the concept of a 'tax free savings account' (TFSA) which w
Re: (Score:2)
Canada is one of them
A quick Google search says otherwise.
The first ten links say capital gains are taxed in Canada when the asset is sold.
Zero links say they are paid on holdings.
Do you really think grandma has a tax liability every time her house fluctuates in value?
you pay immediately taxes on any gains in value
Citation needed.
Re: (Score:2)
Its not true in the UK either, and I don't even have to look it up :). OP it talking mince.
Re: (Score:2)
uh, no, you only pay taxes on realized gains in Canada
and you can withdraw from a TFSA, but you cannot recontribute in the current year unless you have enouch accrued contribution room from previous years. you're "reclaimed" contribution room from a current year withdrawal only gets added to your contribution room in the following tax year
Re: (Score:1)
ye the only decent way is tax-on-profits, fedex doesnt have to pay 55% of its vans and copperminers don't have to pay 60% of their copper, they pay on what they earn over the year , why would it be different for cryptonites ?
its even on "the" blockchain : no cheating - its scurry that 120 year old folk is regulating this while even most merry men in sherwood
Re: (Score:1)
Can you name a specific country
Sly! Nice try, but I'm not getting SWAT'ed by your dumb ass.
Re: (Score:2)
So if I buy $1000 of stocks and they go up another $1000 during the year (and I keep them as stocks), I owe taxes on the extra $1000 in value. If next year they go down $500, I can claim $500 in capital losses, and either apply it to any other gains for that year, or 'bank it' to offset gains at a future date.
That is retarded, and evil.
1. What if you don't have the money? You have to sell the stock? So if the stock price goes up even higher, you'll lose out .. will the government compensate you for that?
2. OK, let's assume you did have the money to pay those taxes, Let's say you pay the government a million dollars one year and the stock price collapses. They'll never give it back to you unless you get it back via tax credits over the years possibly decades? The government must make a lot of money off old people
Re: (Score:1)
That is retarded, and evil.
What's retarded and pure evil is a system that allows one to defer taxes indefinitly [slashdot.org] and shifting the burden of needed tax revenue onto others.
1. What if you don't have the money? You have to sell the stock? So if the stock price goes up even higher, you'll lose out .. will the government compensate you for that?
No, that would be stupid - the government doesn't guarantee that your investements will pay out (well, some governments do offer guaranteed investments, but those are usually low yields and quite different than normal investments, in returns and risk-wise).
2. OK, let's assume you did have the money to pay those taxes, Let's say you pay the government a million dollars one year and the stock price collapses. They'll never give it back to you unless you get it back via tax credits over the years possibly decades? The government must make a lot of money off old people that way. That's a bigger scam than store credit. 3. What about other assets like say paintings you created. Or a home you built? They'll just force you to sell it and then take it from you. What if you are trying to do a multi-year remodeling project?
Same answer. You take the risk, and the reward. But you pay your taxes along the way (instead of deferring them
Re: You can't have profits until you stop holding (Score:2)
If I own something other people want, how is that shifting the burden to anybody else. Itâ(TM)s not deferring revenue on anybody. If I create an awesome sculpture other people want, they should mind their business instead of forcing me to sell it just by virtue of the fact that I created something awesome for myself. I mean there are things other people own that they wonâ(TM)t give me, why should they take mine.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not what's being discussed here, fool.
Re: You can't have profits until you stop holding (Score:2)
All these arguments could be made about taxes on any property, but people pay property taxes.
Stagnant money is bad for the economy, this is why monetary policy willfully prints enough money to create a little inflation. If they did not, the most profitable thing to do would be to hoard cash, obliterating investment and the economy.
Crypto has created a workaround to this, that achieves the same old problem: people who do nothing most increase their share of existing tangible wealth without creating any of it
Re: (Score:2)
No, crypto doesn't "increase their share of existing tangible wealth." The value crypto generates is by being desirable. It doesn't consume resources, and unlike property it doesn't induce services from government services. How is someone holding crypto diminishing anybody else's wealth? The entirety of crypto's value comes from the fact that other people want it. Once it is created, unlike land, holding on to it doesn't diminish anybody else's ability to create goods and services. The sole reason to tax it
Re: (Score:1)
That is retarded, and evil.
1. What if you don't have the money? You have to sell the stock? So if the stock price goes up even higher, you'll lose out .. will the government compensate you for that?
2. OK, let's assume you did have the money to pay those taxes, Let's say you pay the government a million dollars one year and the stock price collapses. They'll never give it back to you unless you get it back via tax credits over the years possibly decades? The government must make a lot of money off old people that way. That's a bigger scam than store credit.
3. What about other assets like say paintings you created. Or a home you built? They'll just force you to sell it and then take it from you. What if you are trying to do a multi-year remodeling project?
By your logic, no one should be ever paying any income tax until they retire or die, at which point they should pay all back taxes all at once.
So, which one sounds stupider?
Re: (Score:2)
No. Tax on assets you own is VERY different from income tax which occurs when you trade with somebody. That can be taxed. When you perform an exchange, that transaction can be taxed. Assets you own cannot be taxed, in fact things a person owns have never been taxed .. not until they trade it. Otherwise it is called a wealth tax. A wealth tax has never existed in the US and might even be unconstitutional .. use google on that one.
Re: (Score:2)
That is retarded, and evil.
I'm pretty sure its also not true. Nobody has cited a single country where this actually happens (one poster said Canada and the UK, which is provably false).
Re: (Score:1)
Sounds like a system which disincentivizes holding stocks by the less affluent members of a society.
It's a fairer system for proper tax collection that doesn't promote wealth disparity [slashdot.org].
Re: (Score:1)
It's a fairer system for proper tax collection that doesn't promote wealth disparity [slashdot.org].
It's not wealth until it is sold, and it's only a problem if Peter Thiel isn't taxed appropriately when he "cashes out". The government shouldn't be entitled to taxes on something you have not sold, whether it's a few worthless GameStop stocks, or 5 billion in whatever Mr. Thiel is holding.
Re: (Score:1)
So you're rooting for the rich that abuse the system for their own gain, to the detriment of the rest of society.
It's not a "gain" until they sell the assets, and at that point they absolutely should have to pay forward their debt to society. If your tax system can't cope with waiting for rich people to sell their stocks, it needs some major reworking.
Re: (Score:2)
Capital gains tax is on the money gained from selling an asset, not from an increase in value of an asset held.
Re: You can't have profits until you stop holding (Score:2)
You are literally imagining things. Unrealized gains on financial assets are not taxed basically anywhere in the world.
Almost nowhere does that (Score:1)
In other parts of the world, you have to declare what increases (or decreases) in the value of your portfolio at tax time, and pay any taxes on any gains ("capital gains") - you don't need to have sold anything first.
In only three countries in Europe [taxfoundation.org] is that true for, for Italy it's only on foreign holdings, and even for the ones it is true for it's usually specific assets above something like 700 Euros...
So it's not so strange that the U.S. does not tax increases in value of something, which is an inherent
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I've never heard of any country that does that. That would be insane.
Oh yes, just as "insane" as those countries that have universal healthcare that allows people to get sick without going bankrupt - what a bunch of crazies those guys are!
Re: (Score:2)
You can be jealous about universal healthcare.
(I burnt through at least $100K in care costs without even the slightest worry for me because of coverage)
Re: (Score:2)
I burnt through at least $100K in care costs without even the slightest worry for me because of coverage
You mean $100K in healthcare retail pricing. Your insurance company paid a contracted small fraction of that amount.
Re: You can't have profits until you stop holding (Score:1)
Is it fair to tax someone on 1 million dollars worth of Bitcoin today if the value goes to 0 tomorrow before they can get anything for it?
How cute, you expect the tax code to be "fair"?
The current administration is considering a wealth tax, but "don't worry, it's only for the really wealthy, not you (yet)."
Re: (Score:2)
The tax model for crypto is well established and not in dispute... if you buy and sell a coin, you pay capital gains in the standard way. If you earn coin you did not previously have (eg staking reward, liquidity pool reward, mining, autofarming interest, gambling profit, etc...) then it is ordinary income. You always prefer capital gains, since it only taxes the gain, whereas income taxes the full amount.
The bill establishes reporting requirements to the IRS for "brokers". The whole debate is over what con
Re: (Score:2)
It’s nearly impossible to evade profits right now. Banks are required to report large deposits to the IRS. The best workaround I can come up with is buying merchandise with bitcoin and then sell it locally for cash. Although at that point you’re running a permanent flea market.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
At some point money makes its way to your bank account. The government doesn’t care where it came from. They care about their cut.
Re: And by squeezed (Score:2)
That's called money laundering [getyarn.io] - something people do to avoid going to "pound you in the (bee-hind) prison" [getyarn.io]
Re: (Score:2)
Money launderers go to minimum security tennis prisons.
Re:And by squeezed (Score:4, Insightful)
Why should someone pay money because something they hold is wanted by others? Let me dumb down the issue to you. If I and someone else wants your house for $100 million, should you be forced to pay $50 million in taxes, not because you sold it .. but just because some people say they would pay $100 million for your house. If you don't pay the tax, you'll be forced to sell the home. Now imagine instead of a home it's your wife.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Why do I pay property taxes on my home?
I guess the trite answer to that question is: because otherwise you'd be breaking the law, and suffer the penalties for doing so.
The more complex answer, which I can't answer for you, but can for myself is: to cover the costs of maintaining and perhaps improving your local community, including such things as: waste collection and disposal; local policing; road maintenance; maintenance of parks and other public areas; schools; and local government salaries.
Sure, some of these might not apply in your particul
Re: And by squeezed (Score:2)
We don't (yet) have a wealth tax, what they apparently want to do is tax the clearing houses and maybe the crypto wallet providers, these are who I think are 'crypto brokers'.
Correction we do have a wealth tax (Score:2)
Re:Correction we do have a wealth tax (Score:4, Insightful)
At least in North America. We have property taxes, which are wealth taxes
The average American has 30% of their wealth in their home.
The average billionaire has 1% of their wealth in their home.
Property taxes are regressive.
mod parent up (Score:3)
Furthermore, since most fund their schools from a bulk of that property tax, you are punishing children of areas who didn't win the genetic lottery of being born to parents living in a well funded district... Parents who were able to zone out lower income people who bring down their property values. (not necessarily poor, in my area the locals stop lower middle-income developments all the time... leaving them essentially to apartments or a few houses near trains or highways. We have no new low-income housin
Re: (Score:1)
Property taxes mostly exist so if you fall on very hard times, you’re forced to sell your home. We collectively don’t like the idea of poor people owning properly, because who’ll keep the rent-seekers in business?
Some places do have a “homestead exemption”, but here in Florida it has not kept up with property values, effectively making even terribly dilapidated homes in bad neighborhoods still subject to what is essentially a “wealth tax”.
Re: Correction we do have a wealth tax (Score:2)
Property taxes mostly exist so if you fall on very hard times, youâ(TM)re forced to sell your home.
What an exceedingly ignorant statement.
Property taxes are to fund schools, police/Fire/EMT, roads, bridges, tunnels, sewers, parks, etc.
We collectively donâ(TM)t like the idea of poor people owning properly, because whoâ(TM)ll keep the rent-seekers in business?
Please define exactly who "We" is - I have no problem with poor people owning property, and I don't know anyone else that does either.
Some places do have a âoehomestead exemptionâ, but here in Florida it has not kept up with property values, effectively making even terribly dilapidated homes in bad neighborhoods still subject to what is essentially a âoewealth taxâ.
In Florida the valuation of a property (hone, condo, etc) is adjusted after it is sold - a person on a fixed income and buys a $100,000 home 15 years ago is paying current tax rates today on a valuation based on the purchase price yeasts ago,
Re: (Score:1)
Property taxes are to fund schools, police/Fire/EMT, roads, bridges, tunnels, sewers, parks, etc.
Explaining what they’re used for still doesn’t explain why the taxes simply couldn’t be levied in some other, more progressive method.
The main reason they exist isn’t to raise money, it’s to give the government a means to seize and place properly back onto the market, in the event the owner becomes insolvent.
Please define exactly who "We" is - I have no problem with poor people owning property, and I don't know anyone else that does either.
Someone who can’t afford their property taxes is also unlikely to afford the upkeep on a home. Dilapidated neighboring properties bring down your property values.
Fur
Re: (Score:2)
Property taxes are state taxes, not federal. The tax power in the 16th amendment gives congress the power is to collect taxes "on income", not wealth.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Look, it's either a currency, in which case you tax it in crypto (i.e. the currency). Or it's an asset, in which case you tax it when you sell it for the actual currency (like dollars). It's as simple as that.
Re: (Score:2)
What they mean is they're going to have to actually pay the taxes on the profits of the assets that they're holding. If you guys are going to tell us it's not funny money then congrats you've entered the real world and now you have an asset to be taxed. As an added bonus you're going to be taxed to pay for the enormous cost of the activity you're doing for proof of work and the enormous cost for policing the high risk proof of stake coins. No more externalizing your costs on to me and society in general. I'm tired of paying for you to launder money. I should think a lot of people on slashdot tired of paying externalized costs for cryptocurrency.
The debate is not over what taxes are owed, it's over who has to report transactions to the IRS. In most of the finance industry, institutions report $10k transactions in or out to cash. That'd be a fine model here and it would mean companies like Coinbase or Robinhood would have a reporting burden. The horrific Portman-Warner amendment basically requires any process that changes coins to report to the IRS, even if they don't touch US dollars, and even if they don't have KYC information, which basically mak
My support (Score:2, Insightful)
My vote goes to whoever supports an amendment limiting the numbers of cryptocurrency stories allowed on Slashdot. I know, first amendment or whatever but I think we can make an exception in this case - the constitution isn't a suicide pact.
Re: My support (Score:2)
Are we currently at four or five simultaneous stories about Apple scanning your iPhotos for child porn?
The problem is the editors are trigger-happy when it comes to certain story topics - they publish anything that comes along about Apple, Amazon, MS, Tesla and a few other 'hot' topics.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is the editors are trigger-happy when it comes to certain story topics
The popular topics can change. We used to have several stories per week about SJWs, brogrammers, and tech company unionization. Thankfully, those are rarer now.
"Bitcoin is insurance against politicians." (Score:1)
No, no, and no. (Score:2)
The argument is between people who want to exempt software developers and related crypto stuff, and the people who wrote the language in the bill who say, "You don't have to exempt them because it already doesn't apply to them." Neither "side" is trying to make this apply to software or crypto.
Clickbait of most moronic variety.
Eventually Sen. Wyden will prevail, because his staff has more experience paying attention to the legal language than these R's who fill their staff with sycophants. In the end, "nuh
Re: No, no, and no. (Score:1)
How long will "R's" get to read the 2,000+ page infrastructure bill?
Re: (Score:2)
How long before the blame somebody else for why they didn't read it, is that what you asked? They helped write it, if they need extra time to read it, that's their own problem.
Re: No, no, and no. (Score:1)
Dems wrote the bill, Dems set the timetable, decide when it is voted on. That a dozen republicans agreed to high-level ratios of funding and spending for the bill doesn't make them responsible for the verbiage within.
The bill has been voted on without an actual bill to vote on, just a placeholder.
That stack of paper Elizabeth Warren flipped around her desk looked to be less than 700 pages, fully one-third the length of the proposed infrastructure bill at 2,700 pages and growing.
How long should it take for a
Re: (Score:2)
You're such a moron. The negotiations have been all over the news for months. You didn't even know that the negotiations involve the staff from the different Senators writing different parts? Why would you succeed in discussing it with me? In this case, it has already been in the news about the response from the Senator whose staff wrote that provision, so you're just a complete moron.
Reality doesn't become whatever you imagine. This was a Republican-authored provision, but their position is, "no, it doesn'
Re: No, no, and no. (Score:1)
We all learned that "D's" are content to pass a bill, so we can find out what's in it! [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:1)
How long will "R's" get to read the 2,000+ page infrastructure bill?
What, you don't think turnabout is fair play [youtube.com]? Let's be honest, it's just a sign that our government is dysfunctional regardless of which side is currently in power.
Re: (Score:2)
Eventually Sen. Wyden will prevail, because his staff has more experience paying attention to the legal language than these R's who fill their staff with sycophants.
That is really optimistic, but I hope you are right.
Legislation to (Score:3)
Put the cat back in the bag? It worked with BitTorrent and the dark web. Makes sense to me!
Let that sink in... (Score:4)
The infrastructure bill, which promises public spending on major projects like new roads and bridge repairs, wouldn't appear to have anything to do with cryptocurrency. But the Congress figured that "crypto brokers" could be squeezed for $28 billion in taxes over a decade to foot part of the bill.
Got that, you can't tell me what any cryptocurrency will be worth in ten days, but the administration is comfortable to imagine it can 'squeeze' $28 Billion in new taxes out of "crypto brokers". This just points out how tenuous these ten-year 'projected income' estimates are.
In other news, the CBO scored the 'fully paid-for' $1.2 Trillion dollar infrastructure bill isn't, it will add nearly $300 Billion to the federal debt - the administration says they're confident they can make that up with hand-wavy 'efficiencies'.
Re: (Score:2)
Crypto is highly volitile in the short term. In the long term, it's actually much more predictable as the short term volatility averages out. This is symptomatic of an asset that hasn't scaled to it potential. Bitcoin is actually less volatile today than it used to be, and is roughly equivalent to Amazon's stock in this regard, although it outperforms it pretty reliably.
Infrastructure (Score:1)
>"The infrastructure bill, which promises public spending on major projects like new roads and bridge repairs, wouldn't appear to have anything to do with cryptocurrency."
That's because it doesn't have anything to do with infrastructure. Lots and lots of things in the so-called "infrastructure" bill have nothing to do with infrastructure. It is wrong, and yet it is typical politics. Less than 7% of the money in the "infrastructure" bill goes to roads, bridges, waterways, ports, and airports. If you w
So disastrous when senators (Score:2)
Omnibus bills (Score:2)
And so (Score:2)
120 years ago...
Senator: What good is electricity in the home?
"Senator, in 20 years, you'll be taxing it."
Sigh
USSA bullshit (Score:1)
The practice of putting all kinds of stuff in a 'bill' labelled as intended for X is not good government practice and smells of tit-for-tat deals.
Due to the USSA's abysmal montary policy, which is in it's final stages, Bitcoin came to be.
One cannot ban Bitcoin. (see Nigeria)
Simply wait for hyperbitcoinization and enjoy.
Shitcoins are to be avoided because they are the cause of this 'cryptocurrency' thing in this `bill`.
Wh
If they're smart (Score:2)
They'll drown it in the tub now.
New Roads and Bridges already funded (Score:2)