Big Crypto has arrived. On August 10, following days of wrangling and furious tweeting, cryptocurrency enthusiasts, advocates, and entrepreneurs watched in horror as the US Senate approved a $1 trillion infrastructure bill, complete with an article that many fear might jeopardise the whole American crypto sector beyond repair. The controversial rule would require that “brokers” of transactions in digital assets – i.e., cryptocurrencies – report their customers to the Internal Revenue Service so they can be taxed.
The crypto crowd griped that the bill’s definition of “broker” was so broad it would potentially encompass miners, validators, and developers of decentralised applications – all of which, while playing pivotal roles in the functioning of a blockchain ecosystem, have no way of identifying their anonymous users.
Initially, it had looked like the bill’s l anguage might be tweaked to exempt those categories, as a trio of senators put forth an amendment clarifying the “broker” term. Then a White House-backed amendment appeared
On the face of it, it’s a drubbing for American crypto. But the narrative that has been doing the rounds is quite different: The infrastructure bill is a watershed moment in the history of cryptocurrency. The technology – at its core a crypto-anarchist, anti-bank, borderline anti-government manifesto disguised as code—has finally acquired that great marker of prestige: a lobby. The fact that some senators were ready to fight in crypto’s corner appears to show that the cryptocurrency industry is more than a gaggle of Twitter accounts and some blue-sky venture capitalists. Whatever the reason, it has influence, and – after the infrastructure bill saga – it will be ready to wield it even more deftly.
“We’re seeing the formalisation, the maturing, of the crypto lobby, and this was the first coordinated effort that brought that to bear,” says Alex Brammer, vice president of business development at Luxor Tech, a bitcoin mining company. “Organisations like the Blockchain Association, the Texas Blockchain Council, or the Chamber of Digital Commerce are certainly going to continue their work.”
Cryptocurrency is usually, and lazily, described as a Wild West, but as a matter of fact the established businesses operating in the sector – from big mining enterprises to Wall Street–listed giants such as Coinbase – tend to crave regulation to define the boundaries of what is acceptable and what might get them into trouble. “Sophisticated players in this space welcome intelligent regulation. It provides clarity and predictability for large operations,” Brammer says. “It provides a set of rules of the road that allow large, publicly traded companies to make sure that they’re doing everything they can to be as viable and as profitable as possible going forward.”
But where does that leave the smaller, less established, less corporate players? Bitcoin – an asset owned and lionised by billionaires such as Mark Cuban and Elon Musk – has been growing since 2009 into an industry that carries heft and brand recognition. (Even Ted Cruz is waxing lyrical about it).
The much-contested amendment approved by the White House would have saved bitcoin while throwing much of crypto under the bus. Granted, when that plan emerged, the crypto lobby – or, at least, crypto-Twitter – rose as one against it. Jerry Brito, executive director of cryptocurrency trade group Coin Center thundered against the Senate’s attempt to pick “winners and losers,” while venture capitalist and crypto-ideologue Balaji Srinivasan said that the amendment would eventually open the door to a full-blown bitcoin ban. But it is worth wondering whether, in the long run, a rift might open between a Big Crypto clamouring for clear regulation to achieve peace of mind and the smaller actors of the cryptocurrency community, who might be less well equipped to meet the requirements that regulation would impose.