A group of Democratic lawmakers had discussions on drafting a “countermeasure” to the Clarity Bill on the 15th of September. This follows after a lengthy process of bipartisan back-and-forth revisions to the bill, focusing on the crucial issues that would serve either party’s interests.
The democrats argue that the bill still has three unresolved—or incomplete—issues. First is the bill’s coverage: the President, their family, friends, spouses, government officials and so on. Next is the bill’s condition: where assets must held must not exceed 15,000 US dollars—or they must sell or put these assets in a ‘blind trust’. Third is the Attorney General’s authority to impose sanctions (monetary or otherwise) to those who break the conditions of the bill.
Where the bill stands, currently, is the oversight of cryptocurrency holding and sponsoring of virtual assets by government officials. Its current iteration covers top U.S. officials; but there is opposition in the bill’s minutia. Trump himself does not hold cryptocurrency, but he had—in the past—sponsored cryptocurrencies. His family, through his sons, leads and owns crypto-native firms that have profited millions of dollars. To the observer, the bill still does not technically cover the family; and this is part of the countermeasure that democrats are proposing.
The bill has been through a lengthy period of revisions. There are even betting sites that strongly suggest the bill will not pass. Analysts argue that there are too many conflicts of interest especially in terms of the Republicans’ interest in keeping Trump free of sanctions. After all, the bill, once ratified and agreed upon by both sides of the aisle, still must have the signature of the president before it becomes law.
In this respect, the Securities and Exchange commission, among other agencies, have taken more proactive approaches to address the stall of legislative oversight on cryptocurrencies. The SEC is unique in that it is not held down by the process of a lengthy debate by parties or officials—or the executive branch, by extension. Rather, as an apolitical body, its prerogative is to both sanction and enact policies and regulations on its own accord. It has, therefore, passed its own set of regulations; for example, the framework for asset management firms and funds in terms of holding cryptocurrency.
Whether the bill passes or not, other agencies are still there to build the scaffolding—and hopefully, a cohesive framework—of the legal landscape of crypto-holding, trading and transacting in the U.S.
