US parliamentarians criticise Treasury Department for rushed crypto bill
Politicians criticise the Department’s rush to pass the new bill.
Nine US congressmen have written a letter criticising the rushed pace of outgoing Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin’s new crypto bill.
In Thursday’s letter, the parliamentarians refer to a proposed change in the law that would require crypto companies to obtain customer Cryptosoft scam information to an even greater extent, especially for transactions with self-hosted wallets.
The corresponding draft law has met with fierce criticism in the crypto industry
One of the most important points of criticism is that it looks as if the outgoing Treasury Secretary Mnuchin wants to push through a new crypto regulation quickly before his replacement by Janet Yellen.
Every new bill in the US must allow for public feedback. This is also the case here, but instead of the usual 60 days, the Treasury Department is only allowing 15 days for its proposal. Moreover, this shortened period expires tomorrow, which is why not only the duration of the feedback solicitation but also its timing is criticised in the MPs‘ letter:
„The bill in question was submitted just before Christmas and has only given the public 15 days for feedback. A comment period that spans several holidays and only eight working days does not lend itself to proper regulation, as it may not allow important stakeholders to be heard.“
The letter’s authors are largely crypto-friendly MPs, including parliamentary blockchain committee members Warren Davidson, Tom Emmer, David Schweikert, Darren Soto and Ted Budd. In addition, Bill Foster of the Parliamentary Artificial Intelligence Committee has also signed on, as have several other politicians who have no previous touchpoints with cryptocurrencies, including Tulsi Gabbard, Tom Cotton and Suzan DelBene.
With the comment period already closing on Monday, it is unlikely that Treasury will budge from its proposal over the weekend. However, there are already initial thoughts of initiating legal proceedings against the ministry if the amendment is actually passed.