English
Jennifer Rosenthal Maimon
10K posts
Jennifer Rosenthal Maimon
@jenn_rosenthal
Comms Chief @fund_defi, bridge between decentralized tech and policy • Unusually Enthusiastic • Board @womeninamerica1 • Prev: Grayscale, FGS Global, Pearson
New York Katılım Kasım 2010
1.8K Takip Edilen4.2K Takipçiler
Jennifer Rosenthal Maimon retweetledi
"... we cannot erode more on developer protections if we really want to bring developers back onshore," says @RebeccaRettig1 on @CoinDesk's new show, The Policy Protocol.
"If we want to real innovation, and real builders, and people feeling safe building onshore, we have to make sure that the bill that passes and gets signed by President Trump really does protect software developers."
English
HT
I call 'em like I see 'em: @LeaderJohnThune is our person of the week on @CoinDesk's The Policy Protocol w the incomparable @renato_mariotti . We need Sen. Thune to get Clarity to the Senate floor 🇺🇸, but have to recognize the Silver Fox for all that he brings to the table 😉
English
Jennifer Rosenthal Maimon retweetledi
This is an incredible chart from @Re7Capital showing risk and return across DeFi strategies
They find that AMM liquidity provision is uniquely attractive risk/reward
Re7 Capital@Re7Capital
Across DeFi strategies, indicative yield tracks composite complexity remarkably tightly — a fair compensation curve emerges. The further a strategy sits from that curve, the more carefully you should ask whether you're being paid for the risk, or just taking it.
English
Final day at The Block today. Was a hell of a ride.
Thanks to everyone who supported me with articles, podcasts, revenue deals over the years 🙏 really appreciate it
Gonna take a few months off to detox from crypto and walk my puppy. Lfg 🫡
English
I agree that the crypto VOTER is concerned about way bigger issues than crypto, specifically.
But when surveys start to test some of the macro concepts touching on enabling financial innovation in America — do you want greater control of your data and assets? Do believe the financial system is secure? And safe from risks of AI? Do you want a way to send funds without intermediaries
The questions around motivation test way higher and a majority of Americans agree that they want more control over their finances.
And, a surprising number of Americans would be keen to *learn more* and consider *using* decentralized tech if there were regs in place. So: classic chicken or egg.
We used Ipsos, btw (same provider and methodology the Fed uses): defieducationfund.org/demystifying-d…
English
Crypto is on the verge of accomplishing an unprecedented act of legislative piracy — writing its own legal framework in an otherwise stalled out Congress with sweeping implications for all of American finance.
I wrote about the money that brought us here and what it means:
Punchbowl News@PunchbowlNews
TOP in @PunchbowlNews ☀️ AM: The legislative triumph of the crypto industry in the Senate this week may be a Rubicon-crossing moment for the shape of U.S. capitalism. @BrendanPedersen and @LauraEWeiss16 explain: punchbowl.news/article/financ…
English
@vronirwin lol you sleuthing in a Google doc is amazing
English
Have had a very weird past 48 hours.
Initially I reached out to 3 Dems recently endorsed by super PAC Leading the Future about whether they’d be accepting: Ritchie Torres, Rob Menendez, and Val Hoyle. Seemed like a pretty reasonable question I’d expected they were prepared for, since I was asking 4 days after the endorsement was announced. The PAC is funded by OpenAI president Greg Brockman, venture capital investors Andreessen Horowitz, and others, and their critics claim the PAC is anti-regulation.
Hoyle’s office initially gave me a fairly critical statement distancing themselves from LTF, and I wrote up a simple story. The statement wasn’t that surprising, since Hoyle had vehemently opposed federal preemption of state AI laws before - and LTF likes preemption.
Then I reached out to LTF for comment. This is standard practice for reporters, to ensure everyone has a chance to say their piece, They gave me a fairly straightforward statement. Candidates and PACs aren’t legally allowed to coordinate, so I didn’t expect some big, orchestrated response. All pretty normal.
It was after that that things got weird. Hours after I initially talked to them - but about 7 min after hearing from LTF - Hoyle’s office reached out to ask if they could change their quotes. Suddenly they were more appreciative of LTF’s endorsement, saying that she would “refuse to ignore industry” but wanted to advocate for workers. They sent me a Google doc and I watched them write and rewrite the statement multiple times.
Then she appears to have ‘preempted’ our story with a series of X posts and videos. (Credits @ShakeelHashim for that joke lol)
I’m not sure what made them change their tune so dramatically, long after the working day was done. But their about face seems symptomatic of a changing political environment, in which AI is becoming a more salient political issue and candidates must be careful how they talk about accepting support from AI PACs (LTF and others). Hoyle has received almost $300k in support from a LTF affiliated PAC - a nice boost for any political candidate - but can’t lose her pro-labor bona fides either.
More details and analysis in my latest for @ReadTransformer (link in reply)
Ben Brody@BenBrodyDC
Days after Leading the Future endorsement, Hoyle says there have been Qs about her AI stance. Says she wants to engage to protect workers and ratepayer and is “glad to have been recognized.” (@vronirwin with story today noting Hoyle’s initial distancing)
English
Jennifer Rosenthal Maimon retweetledi
🚨SCOOP: Last minute negotiations between Banking Committee Republicans and Democrats over multiple amendments were brokered this morning in an effort to secure bipartisan support for today’s vote on the Clarity Act, multiple sources tell me.
However, the compromise came at the cost of a specific change to a @SenLummis amendment that removed language from Section 301 of the bill referencing the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act (BRCA), disappointing some DeFi advocates who say the move could strip out critical protections for software developers as the bill moves forward.
Notably, Senator @MarkWarner (D-VA) did not vote to advance the bill despite positively referencing the changes during the markup.
That said, Senator @berniemoreno said during the hearing that there’s still work to be done on Section 301, suggesting discussions will continue in the coming weeks as @BankingGOP and @SenateAg work to merge the texts ahead of a full Senate vote.
English
A few minutes after the Senate Banking Committee has wrapped up its crypto markup, the room is empty except for a few reporters filing stories and a lone can of Celsius on the witness table
English
Statement from the DEF team on bipartisan progression of Clarity Act and the work that still needs to be done 👇
DeFi Education Fund@fund_defi
Clarity Act passed with bipartisan support out of the Senate Banking Committee! Hundreds of hours have been dedicated to ensuring that software developers have the protections they need to innovate in America. Is the draft text perfect? No, no law will be, and - importantly - as Senators noted, we still have work to do on Section 301 to protect noncontrolling developer and providers. But, this bill is an important step in the right direction for cementing software protections into law. The DEF team is deeply appreciative of the efforts of all the Congressional leaders and staff involved in getting us to this milestone, and we look forward to continuing to work together to get the remaining text right.
English
@EleanorTerrett a concerning pov on our right to privacy
English
Tornado Cash getting a spotlight in today’s hearing as lawmakers debate whether the bill gives law enforcement sufficient tools to combat money laundering.
Warren to Kennedy: “It’s the Tornado problem… you remember Tornado, the mixer? What purpose does Tornado serve? Put your money in if you’re a terrorist!”
GOP lawmakers argue the Clarity Act provides tools to address this issue, while Warren says the bill doesn’t go far enough. Other Democrats joined her in voting to include the amendment. The amendment did not pass.
Eleanor Terrett@EleanorTerrett
Chairman @SenatorTimScott on GOP efforts to make the bill bipartisan: “Since June of last year, we have added 33,000 words and 219 pages to get this legislation as bipartisan as humanly possible.”
English
why is the Banking Committee marking-up crypto legislation if crypto assets aren't securities? Doesn't that Committee have jurisdiction over securities, not commodities? I don't get it, the industry spent years saying crypto didn't fall within the SEC's jurisdiction...?
Patrick Witt@patrickjwitt
Today, the Senate Banking Committee will vote to advance the CLARITY Act. I am proud of the countless hours that my team, Treasury, SEC, CFTC, and Senate Banking staff and members have put into shaping this product. On every issue, we put forward real solutions to address stakeholder concerns or Democrat demands. It often required us to get creative; sometimes, it required us to get uncomfortable. But we did it in the spirit of bipartisanship. Make no mistake: Whether today’s vote is partisan or bipartisan will depend entirely on politics, not policy. The CLARITY Act is not only good policy, it is necessary policy for the United States to maintain our leadership position in global financial markets. Not to mention the robust consumer protections and anti-illicit finance provisions it contains, without which, there are none. This morning’s vote will reveal whether Democrats have genuinely moved on from their war on crypto, or whether they remain cowed by Elizabeth Warren. The choice is theirs.
English
Tell me you don't understand the technology without telling me you don't understand the technology
English
Jennifer Rosenthal Maimon retweetledi
From the very beginning, the crypto industry was united in asking that market structure legislation deliver legal clarity and protection for software developers. Clarity Act Section 604 (the BRCA) and the developer protections in Section 601 are a manifestation of a foundational principle: there is no digital asset industry without appropriate protections for those building it.
As we head into this morning’s markup, we extend massive thanks to @SenatorTimScott, @SenLummis, @SenThomTillis, @BernieMoreno, @SenatorHagerty, @PatrickJWitt, and the unsung heroes—Congressional staff—for being true advocates of developers and innovation.
DeFi Education Fund@fund_defi
Today, a coalition of 100+ signatories join DEF in sending a letter to Congress. Software developer protections are a non-negotiable in digital asset market structure legislation. This critical issue unites us — crypto and tech builders, investors, and advocates.
English
@AssetsDaily @fund_defi Thanks for highlighting! Anti-DeFi amendment list is here: x.com/fund_defi/stat…
DeFi Education Fund@fund_defi
DEF is tracking anti-DeFi amendments. Ahead of the Senate Banking Committee markup of the Clarity Act, Senators submit amendments to be considered and voted on. Importantly, not every amendment will be considered, which means we have a timely opportunity to urge Senators to oppose amendments that could harm DeFi technology, developers, and users. Here are the amendments you should ask your Senators to oppose*: ➡️ Amendment #16, Senator Cortez Masto. [Re-writes the BRCA to turn it from a shield to a sword against developers] ➡️ Amendment #17. Senator Cortez Masto. [Strikes protections for non-controlling developers in Section 302] ➡️ Amendment #22, Senator Cortez Masto. [Strikes protections for non-controlling developers in Section 301] ➡️ Amendment #24, Senator Kim. [Expands the definition of a “financial institution” in 31 USC 5312 to include digital asset businesses] ➡️ Amendment #27, Senator Kim. [Expands BSA/AML obligations and certification requirements for "covered businesses" to “prevent illicit finance” through decentralized financial services platforms] ➡️ Amendment #32, Senator Van Hollen. [Expands application of criminal code to DeFi developers who publish, distribute, deploy, administer, or constitute code that “facilitates” crime or who act with “reckless disregard for a substantial risk” the DeFi trading protocol is used in connection with a violation of 1956, 1957, 1960, or 2339C] ➡️ Amendment #33, Senator Van Hollen. [Prohibits publishing, distributing, deploying, or constituting a DeFi trading protocol “for the purpose of facilitating” a violation of 1956, 1957, 1960, or 2339C] ➡️ Amendment #67, Senator Warren. “...would exempt certain software developers identified in the White House digital assets report and address vulnerabilities to protect national security” ➡️ Amendment #69, Senator Warren. “...would define financial institutions under anti-money laundering law” ➡️ Amendment #70, Senator Warren. “...would establish tailored anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism responsibilities for certain DeFi front-ends” ➡️ Amendment #71, Senator Warren. “...would establish tailored anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism responsibilities for certain DeFi businesses” ➡️ Amendment #72, Senator Warren. “...would establish tailored anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism responsibilities for certain DeFi businesses” ➡️ Amendment #73, Senator Warren. “...would close the tokenization loopholes” ➡️ Amendment #89, Senator Reed. [Direct attack on Van Loon - 5th Circuit federal court decision - by subjecting smart contracts to sanctions “without regard to whether such contracts operate autonomously, can be modified, or are owned”] ➡️ Amendment #92, Senator Reed. [Expands the application of the BSA by broadening the definition of "financial institution" to include digital asset companies and developers] ➡️ Amendment #94, Senator Reed. [Eliminates BRCA from Clarity Act] *The amendment text is not yet public. Bracketed language is DEF’s description based on text the DEF team reviewed; language in quotes is the Senators’ original description, which suggests a threat to DeFi. The DEF team will keep track of these amendments during Thursday’s markup, and will share updates on X. Stay tuned!
English
“Following the submission of more than 100 amendments to the Clarity Act by Senate Banking Committee members last night, @fund_defi is tracking what it describes as “anti-DeFi amendments” that it says would harm DeFi technology, users and developers, and is urging supporters to lobby senators against them ahead of tomorrow’s markup.”
Eleanor Terrett@EleanorTerrett
🚨Scooplet: Following the submission of more than 100 amendments to the Clarity Act by Senate Banking Committee members last night, @fund_defi is tracking what it describes as “anti-DeFi amendments” that it says would harm DeFi technology, users and developers, and is urging supporters to lobby senators against them ahead of tomorrow’s markup. According to DEF, the amendments come from Democratic Senators @CortezMasto, @AndyKimNJ, @ChrisVanHollen, @SenWarren and @SenJackReed and collectively target core DeFi protections in the bill including the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act (BRCA), protections for non-controlling software developers, DeFi front ends, tokenization provisions, and expanded BSA/AML obligations for developers and digital asset businesses.
English
@ChartNerdTA Thanks for amplifying! Anti-DeFi amendment list here: x.com/fund_defi/stat…
DeFi Education Fund@fund_defi
DEF is tracking anti-DeFi amendments. Ahead of the Senate Banking Committee markup of the Clarity Act, Senators submit amendments to be considered and voted on. Importantly, not every amendment will be considered, which means we have a timely opportunity to urge Senators to oppose amendments that could harm DeFi technology, developers, and users. Here are the amendments you should ask your Senators to oppose*: ➡️ Amendment #16, Senator Cortez Masto. [Re-writes the BRCA to turn it from a shield to a sword against developers] ➡️ Amendment #17. Senator Cortez Masto. [Strikes protections for non-controlling developers in Section 302] ➡️ Amendment #22, Senator Cortez Masto. [Strikes protections for non-controlling developers in Section 301] ➡️ Amendment #24, Senator Kim. [Expands the definition of a “financial institution” in 31 USC 5312 to include digital asset businesses] ➡️ Amendment #27, Senator Kim. [Expands BSA/AML obligations and certification requirements for "covered businesses" to “prevent illicit finance” through decentralized financial services platforms] ➡️ Amendment #32, Senator Van Hollen. [Expands application of criminal code to DeFi developers who publish, distribute, deploy, administer, or constitute code that “facilitates” crime or who act with “reckless disregard for a substantial risk” the DeFi trading protocol is used in connection with a violation of 1956, 1957, 1960, or 2339C] ➡️ Amendment #33, Senator Van Hollen. [Prohibits publishing, distributing, deploying, or constituting a DeFi trading protocol “for the purpose of facilitating” a violation of 1956, 1957, 1960, or 2339C] ➡️ Amendment #67, Senator Warren. “...would exempt certain software developers identified in the White House digital assets report and address vulnerabilities to protect national security” ➡️ Amendment #69, Senator Warren. “...would define financial institutions under anti-money laundering law” ➡️ Amendment #70, Senator Warren. “...would establish tailored anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism responsibilities for certain DeFi front-ends” ➡️ Amendment #71, Senator Warren. “...would establish tailored anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism responsibilities for certain DeFi businesses” ➡️ Amendment #72, Senator Warren. “...would establish tailored anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism responsibilities for certain DeFi businesses” ➡️ Amendment #73, Senator Warren. “...would close the tokenization loopholes” ➡️ Amendment #89, Senator Reed. [Direct attack on Van Loon - 5th Circuit federal court decision - by subjecting smart contracts to sanctions “without regard to whether such contracts operate autonomously, can be modified, or are owned”] ➡️ Amendment #92, Senator Reed. [Expands the application of the BSA by broadening the definition of "financial institution" to include digital asset companies and developers] ➡️ Amendment #94, Senator Reed. [Eliminates BRCA from Clarity Act] *The amendment text is not yet public. Bracketed language is DEF’s description based on text the DEF team reviewed; language in quotes is the Senators’ original description, which suggests a threat to DeFi. The DEF team will keep track of these amendments during Thursday’s markup, and will share updates on X. Stay tuned!
English
Long story short: Democratic Senators suggest the current DeFi language in the #CLARITY Act is harmful to DeFi innovation, users, and developers. urging lobbying before the markup vote tomorrow 🇺🇸
Eleanor Terrett@EleanorTerrett
🚨Scooplet: Following the submission of more than 100 amendments to the Clarity Act by Senate Banking Committee members last night, @fund_defi is tracking what it describes as “anti-DeFi amendments” that it says would harm DeFi technology, users and developers, and is urging supporters to lobby senators against them ahead of tomorrow’s markup. According to DEF, the amendments come from Democratic Senators @CortezMasto, @AndyKimNJ, @ChrisVanHollen, @SenWarren and @SenJackReed and collectively target core DeFi protections in the bill including the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act (BRCA), protections for non-controlling software developers, DeFi front ends, tokenization provisions, and expanded BSA/AML obligations for developers and digital asset businesses.
English
@leolanza Thanks for amplifying. Anti-DeFi amendment list here: x.com/fund_defi/stat…
DeFi Education Fund@fund_defi
DEF is tracking anti-DeFi amendments. Ahead of the Senate Banking Committee markup of the Clarity Act, Senators submit amendments to be considered and voted on. Importantly, not every amendment will be considered, which means we have a timely opportunity to urge Senators to oppose amendments that could harm DeFi technology, developers, and users. Here are the amendments you should ask your Senators to oppose*: ➡️ Amendment #16, Senator Cortez Masto. [Re-writes the BRCA to turn it from a shield to a sword against developers] ➡️ Amendment #17. Senator Cortez Masto. [Strikes protections for non-controlling developers in Section 302] ➡️ Amendment #22, Senator Cortez Masto. [Strikes protections for non-controlling developers in Section 301] ➡️ Amendment #24, Senator Kim. [Expands the definition of a “financial institution” in 31 USC 5312 to include digital asset businesses] ➡️ Amendment #27, Senator Kim. [Expands BSA/AML obligations and certification requirements for "covered businesses" to “prevent illicit finance” through decentralized financial services platforms] ➡️ Amendment #32, Senator Van Hollen. [Expands application of criminal code to DeFi developers who publish, distribute, deploy, administer, or constitute code that “facilitates” crime or who act with “reckless disregard for a substantial risk” the DeFi trading protocol is used in connection with a violation of 1956, 1957, 1960, or 2339C] ➡️ Amendment #33, Senator Van Hollen. [Prohibits publishing, distributing, deploying, or constituting a DeFi trading protocol “for the purpose of facilitating” a violation of 1956, 1957, 1960, or 2339C] ➡️ Amendment #67, Senator Warren. “...would exempt certain software developers identified in the White House digital assets report and address vulnerabilities to protect national security” ➡️ Amendment #69, Senator Warren. “...would define financial institutions under anti-money laundering law” ➡️ Amendment #70, Senator Warren. “...would establish tailored anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism responsibilities for certain DeFi front-ends” ➡️ Amendment #71, Senator Warren. “...would establish tailored anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism responsibilities for certain DeFi businesses” ➡️ Amendment #72, Senator Warren. “...would establish tailored anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism responsibilities for certain DeFi businesses” ➡️ Amendment #73, Senator Warren. “...would close the tokenization loopholes” ➡️ Amendment #89, Senator Reed. [Direct attack on Van Loon - 5th Circuit federal court decision - by subjecting smart contracts to sanctions “without regard to whether such contracts operate autonomously, can be modified, or are owned”] ➡️ Amendment #92, Senator Reed. [Expands the application of the BSA by broadening the definition of "financial institution" to include digital asset companies and developers] ➡️ Amendment #94, Senator Reed. [Eliminates BRCA from Clarity Act] *The amendment text is not yet public. Bracketed language is DEF’s description based on text the DEF team reviewed; language in quotes is the Senators’ original description, which suggests a threat to DeFi. The DEF team will keep track of these amendments during Thursday’s markup, and will share updates on X. Stay tuned!
English
Anti-DeFi Amendments Clarity Act
Call your senators and tell them to fight back against anti-DeFi amendments to the CLARITY Act.
DeFi builders and developers are the lifeblood of this ecosystem — and only a loud, united community can stop harmful anti-crypto provisions from being stuffed into this bill.
Eleanor Terrett@EleanorTerrett
🚨Scooplet: Following the submission of more than 100 amendments to the Clarity Act by Senate Banking Committee members last night, @fund_defi is tracking what it describes as “anti-DeFi amendments” that it says would harm DeFi technology, users and developers, and is urging supporters to lobby senators against them ahead of tomorrow’s markup. According to DEF, the amendments come from Democratic Senators @CortezMasto, @AndyKimNJ, @ChrisVanHollen, @SenWarren and @SenJackReed and collectively target core DeFi protections in the bill including the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act (BRCA), protections for non-controlling software developers, DeFi front ends, tokenization provisions, and expanded BSA/AML obligations for developers and digital asset businesses.
English
@CryptoWendyO Call Senators! Anti-DeFi amendment list here:
x.com/fund_defi/stat…
DeFi Education Fund@fund_defi
DEF is tracking anti-DeFi amendments. Ahead of the Senate Banking Committee markup of the Clarity Act, Senators submit amendments to be considered and voted on. Importantly, not every amendment will be considered, which means we have a timely opportunity to urge Senators to oppose amendments that could harm DeFi technology, developers, and users. Here are the amendments you should ask your Senators to oppose*: ➡️ Amendment #16, Senator Cortez Masto. [Re-writes the BRCA to turn it from a shield to a sword against developers] ➡️ Amendment #17. Senator Cortez Masto. [Strikes protections for non-controlling developers in Section 302] ➡️ Amendment #22, Senator Cortez Masto. [Strikes protections for non-controlling developers in Section 301] ➡️ Amendment #24, Senator Kim. [Expands the definition of a “financial institution” in 31 USC 5312 to include digital asset businesses] ➡️ Amendment #27, Senator Kim. [Expands BSA/AML obligations and certification requirements for "covered businesses" to “prevent illicit finance” through decentralized financial services platforms] ➡️ Amendment #32, Senator Van Hollen. [Expands application of criminal code to DeFi developers who publish, distribute, deploy, administer, or constitute code that “facilitates” crime or who act with “reckless disregard for a substantial risk” the DeFi trading protocol is used in connection with a violation of 1956, 1957, 1960, or 2339C] ➡️ Amendment #33, Senator Van Hollen. [Prohibits publishing, distributing, deploying, or constituting a DeFi trading protocol “for the purpose of facilitating” a violation of 1956, 1957, 1960, or 2339C] ➡️ Amendment #67, Senator Warren. “...would exempt certain software developers identified in the White House digital assets report and address vulnerabilities to protect national security” ➡️ Amendment #69, Senator Warren. “...would define financial institutions under anti-money laundering law” ➡️ Amendment #70, Senator Warren. “...would establish tailored anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism responsibilities for certain DeFi front-ends” ➡️ Amendment #71, Senator Warren. “...would establish tailored anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism responsibilities for certain DeFi businesses” ➡️ Amendment #72, Senator Warren. “...would establish tailored anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism responsibilities for certain DeFi businesses” ➡️ Amendment #73, Senator Warren. “...would close the tokenization loopholes” ➡️ Amendment #89, Senator Reed. [Direct attack on Van Loon - 5th Circuit federal court decision - by subjecting smart contracts to sanctions “without regard to whether such contracts operate autonomously, can be modified, or are owned”] ➡️ Amendment #92, Senator Reed. [Expands the application of the BSA by broadening the definition of "financial institution" to include digital asset companies and developers] ➡️ Amendment #94, Senator Reed. [Eliminates BRCA from Clarity Act] *The amendment text is not yet public. Bracketed language is DEF’s description based on text the DEF team reviewed; language in quotes is the Senators’ original description, which suggests a threat to DeFi. The DEF team will keep track of these amendments during Thursday’s markup, and will share updates on X. Stay tuned!
English
Crypto will not be the crypto capital of the world without developer protections.
Clarity is a scam.
Eleanor Terrett@EleanorTerrett
🚨Scooplet: Following the submission of more than 100 amendments to the Clarity Act by Senate Banking Committee members last night, @fund_defi is tracking what it describes as “anti-DeFi amendments” that it says would harm DeFi technology, users and developers, and is urging supporters to lobby senators against them ahead of tomorrow’s markup. According to DEF, the amendments come from Democratic Senators @CortezMasto, @AndyKimNJ, @ChrisVanHollen, @SenWarren and @SenJackReed and collectively target core DeFi protections in the bill including the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act (BRCA), protections for non-controlling software developers, DeFi front ends, tokenization provisions, and expanded BSA/AML obligations for developers and digital asset businesses.
English
@1CrypticPoet Thanks for amplifying. Anti-DeFi amendment list here:
x.com/fund_defi/stat…
DeFi Education Fund@fund_defi
DEF is tracking anti-DeFi amendments. Ahead of the Senate Banking Committee markup of the Clarity Act, Senators submit amendments to be considered and voted on. Importantly, not every amendment will be considered, which means we have a timely opportunity to urge Senators to oppose amendments that could harm DeFi technology, developers, and users. Here are the amendments you should ask your Senators to oppose*: ➡️ Amendment #16, Senator Cortez Masto. [Re-writes the BRCA to turn it from a shield to a sword against developers] ➡️ Amendment #17. Senator Cortez Masto. [Strikes protections for non-controlling developers in Section 302] ➡️ Amendment #22, Senator Cortez Masto. [Strikes protections for non-controlling developers in Section 301] ➡️ Amendment #24, Senator Kim. [Expands the definition of a “financial institution” in 31 USC 5312 to include digital asset businesses] ➡️ Amendment #27, Senator Kim. [Expands BSA/AML obligations and certification requirements for "covered businesses" to “prevent illicit finance” through decentralized financial services platforms] ➡️ Amendment #32, Senator Van Hollen. [Expands application of criminal code to DeFi developers who publish, distribute, deploy, administer, or constitute code that “facilitates” crime or who act with “reckless disregard for a substantial risk” the DeFi trading protocol is used in connection with a violation of 1956, 1957, 1960, or 2339C] ➡️ Amendment #33, Senator Van Hollen. [Prohibits publishing, distributing, deploying, or constituting a DeFi trading protocol “for the purpose of facilitating” a violation of 1956, 1957, 1960, or 2339C] ➡️ Amendment #67, Senator Warren. “...would exempt certain software developers identified in the White House digital assets report and address vulnerabilities to protect national security” ➡️ Amendment #69, Senator Warren. “...would define financial institutions under anti-money laundering law” ➡️ Amendment #70, Senator Warren. “...would establish tailored anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism responsibilities for certain DeFi front-ends” ➡️ Amendment #71, Senator Warren. “...would establish tailored anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism responsibilities for certain DeFi businesses” ➡️ Amendment #72, Senator Warren. “...would establish tailored anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism responsibilities for certain DeFi businesses” ➡️ Amendment #73, Senator Warren. “...would close the tokenization loopholes” ➡️ Amendment #89, Senator Reed. [Direct attack on Van Loon - 5th Circuit federal court decision - by subjecting smart contracts to sanctions “without regard to whether such contracts operate autonomously, can be modified, or are owned”] ➡️ Amendment #92, Senator Reed. [Expands the application of the BSA by broadening the definition of "financial institution" to include digital asset companies and developers] ➡️ Amendment #94, Senator Reed. [Eliminates BRCA from Clarity Act] *The amendment text is not yet public. Bracketed language is DEF’s description based on text the DEF team reviewed; language in quotes is the Senators’ original description, which suggests a threat to DeFi. The DEF team will keep track of these amendments during Thursday’s markup, and will share updates on X. Stay tuned!
English
the mask is off.
these amendments are not aimed at criminals. they are aimed at the parts of DeFi that make banks optional.
front ends. developers. non-custodial tools. tokenized assets.
banks aren't fighting crime. they’re fighting competition.
they had decades to build a fairer system and chose fees, friction, and bullshit.
call your senators.
kill the anti-DeFi amendments.
pass real CLARITY.
Eleanor Terrett@EleanorTerrett
🚨Scooplet: Following the submission of more than 100 amendments to the Clarity Act by Senate Banking Committee members last night, @fund_defi is tracking what it describes as “anti-DeFi amendments” that it says would harm DeFi technology, users and developers, and is urging supporters to lobby senators against them ahead of tomorrow’s markup. According to DEF, the amendments come from Democratic Senators @CortezMasto, @AndyKimNJ, @ChrisVanHollen, @SenWarren and @SenJackReed and collectively target core DeFi protections in the bill including the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act (BRCA), protections for non-controlling software developers, DeFi front ends, tokenization provisions, and expanded BSA/AML obligations for developers and digital asset businesses.
English
DeFi Education Fund@fund_defi
DEF is tracking anti-DeFi amendments. Ahead of the Senate Banking Committee markup of the Clarity Act, Senators submit amendments to be considered and voted on. Importantly, not every amendment will be considered, which means we have a timely opportunity to urge Senators to oppose amendments that could harm DeFi technology, developers, and users. Here are the amendments you should ask your Senators to oppose*: ➡️ Amendment #16, Senator Cortez Masto. [Re-writes the BRCA to turn it from a shield to a sword against developers] ➡️ Amendment #17. Senator Cortez Masto. [Strikes protections for non-controlling developers in Section 302] ➡️ Amendment #22, Senator Cortez Masto. [Strikes protections for non-controlling developers in Section 301] ➡️ Amendment #24, Senator Kim. [Expands the definition of a “financial institution” in 31 USC 5312 to include digital asset businesses] ➡️ Amendment #27, Senator Kim. [Expands BSA/AML obligations and certification requirements for "covered businesses" to “prevent illicit finance” through decentralized financial services platforms] ➡️ Amendment #32, Senator Van Hollen. [Expands application of criminal code to DeFi developers who publish, distribute, deploy, administer, or constitute code that “facilitates” crime or who act with “reckless disregard for a substantial risk” the DeFi trading protocol is used in connection with a violation of 1956, 1957, 1960, or 2339C] ➡️ Amendment #33, Senator Van Hollen. [Prohibits publishing, distributing, deploying, or constituting a DeFi trading protocol “for the purpose of facilitating” a violation of 1956, 1957, 1960, or 2339C] ➡️ Amendment #67, Senator Warren. “...would exempt certain software developers identified in the White House digital assets report and address vulnerabilities to protect national security” ➡️ Amendment #69, Senator Warren. “...would define financial institutions under anti-money laundering law” ➡️ Amendment #70, Senator Warren. “...would establish tailored anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism responsibilities for certain DeFi front-ends” ➡️ Amendment #71, Senator Warren. “...would establish tailored anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism responsibilities for certain DeFi businesses” ➡️ Amendment #72, Senator Warren. “...would establish tailored anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism responsibilities for certain DeFi businesses” ➡️ Amendment #73, Senator Warren. “...would close the tokenization loopholes” ➡️ Amendment #89, Senator Reed. [Direct attack on Van Loon - 5th Circuit federal court decision - by subjecting smart contracts to sanctions “without regard to whether such contracts operate autonomously, can be modified, or are owned”] ➡️ Amendment #92, Senator Reed. [Expands the application of the BSA by broadening the definition of "financial institution" to include digital asset companies and developers] ➡️ Amendment #94, Senator Reed. [Eliminates BRCA from Clarity Act] *The amendment text is not yet public. Bracketed language is DEF’s description based on text the DEF team reviewed; language in quotes is the Senators’ original description, which suggests a threat to DeFi. The DEF team will keep track of these amendments during Thursday’s markup, and will share updates on X. Stay tuned!
QME
@EleanorTerrett @fund_defi I'm curious what specific amendments they're flagging as anti-DeFi? Need to understand if it's legitimate consumer protection concerns or actual tech restrictions before forming an opinion.
English
🚨Scooplet: Following the submission of more than 100 amendments to the Clarity Act by Senate Banking Committee members last night, @fund_defi is tracking what it describes as “anti-DeFi amendments” that it says would harm DeFi technology, users and developers, and is urging supporters to lobby senators against them ahead of tomorrow’s markup.
According to DEF, the amendments come from Democratic Senators @CortezMasto, @AndyKimNJ, @ChrisVanHollen, @SenWarren and @SenJackReed and collectively target core DeFi protections in the bill including the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act (BRCA), protections for non-controlling software developers, DeFi front ends, tokenization provisions, and expanded BSA/AML obligations for developers and digital asset businesses.
English