Alex Thorn

HISTORY IS LONGER THAN YOU THINK no global leader alive has governed under a hard money standard. not one will that always be true? i don’t think so bitcoin disrupts — not by accident, but by design

@TFTC21 @MartyBent yes, removing the reference from 301 means technically the SEC could do defi/cefi rulemaking that touches non-controlling devs (securities laws, not money transmission laws — protections from those are still in sec 604 BRCA)

Correction: The BRCA itself remains intact in the CLARITY Act. The change removed a rule of construction in a separate provision that already excluded non-controlling developers. The core developer protections from the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act were not stripped. Section 301 discussions are ongoing ahead of the floor vote.

@RubenGallego Passed out of senate banking committee on bipartisan basis x.com/intangiblecoin…

they are now voting on the bipartisan amendments -- warnock, warner, ccm, gallego, and alsobrooks have been voting "aye" for the new bipartisan amendments. not clear if the 4 will also follow gallego to vote yes to move out of committee, but it's likely 2 do (maybe alsobrooks and warner)

🚨 SEN. GALLEGO (D-NM) SAYS HE WILL VOTE YES FOR CLARITY ACT IN SENATE BANKING COMMITTEE, PAVING THE WAY FOR A BIPARTISAN SUCCESSFUL VOTE OUT OF THE COMMITTEE

@hodl_shark yes, there very likely needs to be a bipartisan amendment on ethics on the floor for this to pass the senate.. possibly on other issues too.. but this is a big milestone

@intangiblecoins But he caveats that it needs work and is not a guarantee he will vote on the Senate floor. Needs to get this done… democratic constituents need to keep a close eye on their senators. Crypto is bipartisan and must pass. Your constituents are watching you!

reconciled with senate ag's version, then majority leader thune schedules time on the floor. amendments there (probably a bipartisan amendment on ethics is needed there), then voted in senate, if passed then reconciled with house... still more work to do but this is clearest positive yet

@intangiblecoins So what's next?

🚨 CLARITY ACT ADVANCES FROM COMMITTEE IN BIPARTISAN VOTE FINAL VOTE: 15-9, with Sens. Gallego and Alsobrooks joining Republicans to vote out on bipartisan basis

@NixonLB oops true, my bad

@intangiblecoins great news! (he's from AZ not NM though)

Today is a big day for crypto in Congress. The Senate Banking markup starts at 10:30 AM EDT. Link to livestream in next post. What to watch for? What is at stake? What may derail it? What are likelihoods and impacts of a partisan markup vs. a bipartisan one? Read here: galaxy.com/insights/resea…

I hear the @NationalSheriff Association has come out against the Clarity Act, and frankly I'm in disbelief. When I was at DOJ, I've worked with the National Sheriffs' Association and could not have more respect for them. Since joining @MetaMask, I've been constantly in touch with law enforcement agencies - including numerous sheriffs offices across the country, wanting to be a resource in the fight against crime targeting self-custody wallet users. The frauds, the social engineering, the wallet drainer hacks. We take it seriously, and we want law enforcement to have better tools. Which is why I can't imagine both wanting to be tougher on this type of crime AND pushing to have the Clarity Act fail. Said simply, if we don't get this done, law enforcement's job is only getting harder. The concern appears to be over Sec. 604, which applies to blockchain infrastructure developers alone. It was negotiated directly with Sen. Grassley and the Senate Judiciary Committee, who now appear to be in agreement that its the right approach. And it is! Prosecutors keep their full authority to go after anyone who intentionally facilitates criminal activity or unlawful transfers of funds. Nothing in the bill weakens AML, sanctions, terrorism financing, money laundering, or trafficking statutes. The new Title III adds dedicated illicit finance, AML/CFT compliance, sanctions, and law enforcement coordination provisions on top of all of that. What the bill does is stop the misclassification of software developers and non-custodial infrastructure providers as financial intermediaries solely for publishing code. It treats these people like we treat people who design and upgrade basic layers of the internet. We don't hold them accountable when a fake Nigerian prince is emailing Grandma to mail them her life savings! I know the people who build apps and the people who build infrastructure are all "developers", but what they do is different and that distinction matters. Nothing in Clarity Act would hamper investigators from focusing on actual bad actors. All it says is that, if the bank robber got away using the only road out of town, the police aren't going to be able to make a case against the guy who paved the road. It's a sensible distinction that I think improves public safety. The Clarity Act really does a great job drawing the right line between public safety and innovation. Opposing it leaves us with the worst of both possible outcomes, namely worse rules for honest builders - who we want in the US as opposed to overseas - and no new tools for the cops doing the actual work. I hope the National Sheriff's Association reconsiders its view as we get out of the Banking Committee and start debating the bill on the floor.

@TradesBen too right

@intangiblecoins “Lower manhattan” Alex you gotta lock in

overheard tonight in lower manhattan: “there is no peptide for discipline, bro, you just gotta lock in”

Count of CLARITY Act amendments in Senate Banking filed by senator: Warren 44 Reed 18 Van Hollen 8 Hagerty 5 Lummis 5 Kim 4 Britt 3 Cortez Masto 3 McCormick 3 Smith 3 Scott 2 Warnock 2 Alsobrooks 1 Cramer 1 Gallego 1 Rounds 1 Warner 1

some people on CLARITY: “everything that can be done has been done” and “let the chips fall where they may” me:

@xm_build i agree, which is why i said that ;)

@intangiblecoins we're behind in futures too, almost no volume

some say the US needs CLARITY to solidify its dominance in digital assets the reality is we are not dominating today less than 10% of spot and less than 2% of futures volume is in the USA. we're behind we need to step up or the future of capital markets could be build abroad