Article reprint source: ChainCatcher
原文标题：Coin Center’s Analysis of the Crypto Policy Landscape Following the Elections
By Peter Van Valkenburgh
Compiled by: Mensh, ChainCatcher
Cryptocurrencies have received a lot of attention in the recent election, and many are wondering how friendly the new administration and Congress will be. In short, we expect some areas to improve, while others will remain challenging. We expect that good policy may be easier to implement in securities and banking regulation, while there may be clearer rules governing centralized secondary markets and centralized stablecoin issuers.
In the areas of anti-money laundering, tax reporting, and sanctions, the outlook is less certain. Coin Center will continue to focus on protecting the rights of developers of self-driving and privacy software, as well as the rights of ordinary Americans who want to use these tools. Below is our thinking on these issues, as well as our initial analysis of the opportunities and challenges ahead.
How to think about encryption during a change of government
Policy issues for cryptocurrencies can be roughly divided into two categories: monitoring issues (tax reporting, BSA banking secrecy laws, AML anti-money laundering laws, sanctions) and investor protection issues (SEC, CFTC, banks). Achieving good policy in one category does not guarantee similar positive results in another. The rationale behind each policy area is different (protecting investors vs. identifying and blocking illicit financial flows), and legislators have different political motivations and coalition-building opportunities when focusing on one area.
Similarly, the cryptocurrency ecosystem can be divided into two categories: centralized enterprises (custodial wallet providers, centralized exchanges, trusted issuers) and decentralized infrastructure developers and users (protocol developers, non-custodial wallet and application developers, and non-intermediary users of these protocols and applications).
Coin Center hopes for good policy in all areas, but our core mission is to defend the rights of developers and users of decentralized and peer-to-peer tools. Overregulation in the areas of investor protection or surveillance can threaten developers and users. However, the recent threat from the surveillance area is more profound.
Here’s a graphic of past and potential future policy actions to help you understand the framework:
You may notice that the box in the bottom right corner appears overcrowded. This may be partly our bias. Coin Center’s mission is focused on the rights of decentralized infrastructure developers to publish code (a First Amendment issue) and the obligation to prevent improper surveillance (a Fourth Amendment issue), and the fourth quadrant is precisely the battlefield where these two topics intersect. Although we may be biased, this issue area does seem to have been more aggressive than other areas over the past four years. There are many explanations for this, including arguments of political aura and news cycles, politicians mistakenly or opportunistically linking global and foreign policy tragedies to cryptocurrency (such as Hamas funding, Russian oligarchs trying to circumvent sanctions), and political alliance building, where the left and the right, while rarely in agreement, sometimes find common ground on perceived issues of national security and surveillance.
What is the biggest threat?
The past few years have posed a serious threat to the freedom of individual cryptocurrency users and developers. In its trading redefinition rules and enforcement actions against wallet providers such as Metamask and Coinbase Wallet, we have seen that the SEC is too aggressive in directly regulating individual developers and users in its trading redefinition rules. Surveillance issues are also beginning to emerge:
6050I
Tornado Cash Sanctions
Broker Disclosure Rules (Translator’s Note: In August 2023, the Treasury Department released a proposed regulation that aims to define if a cryptocurrency-related person is considered a “broker” under tax law. They need to collect personal information about their crypto tool users and report this information to the IRS (Internal Revenue Service) for tax purposes)
and unlicensed money transmission prosecutions against non-custodial developers. Meanwhile, in Congress, we oppose legislation that imposes unreasonable monitoring obligations on non-custodial developers in bills like CANSEE (Crypto Asset National Security Enhancement Act) and DAMLA (Digital Asset Market Structure and Regulatory Accountability Act).
This is a long battle
Three major threats come to mind: (1) 6050I, (2) Tornado Cash sanctions, and (3) unlicensed money transmission prosecutions. First, we already have ongoing litigation in the context of 6050I; we argue that mandatory writless reporting to the IRS, including personal information received in excess of $10,000 in cryptocurrency, is unconstitutional. Second, with respect to Tornado Cash sanctions, we argue that sanctions law does not give the Treasury Department the power to prohibit U.S. persons from using tools like smart contracts because such tools are neither owned by nor the property of foreign persons. Third, we have watched with horror as the Southern District of New York has filed unlicensed money transmission prosecutions against developers of noncustodial software tools (Tornado Cash and Samurai Wallet), and we will continue to do our best to help defendants in these cases. While the Department of Justice may be changing under the Trump Administration, it maintains its political independence and is therefore unlikely to abandon these prosecutions in response to a change in administration.
Can we still be optimistic?
In short, the new administration will be good for U.S.-based centralized businesses, especially when it comes to investor protection, as intermediary services and efficient capital formation are critical to boosting the appeal of cryptocurrencies among less technologically sophisticated audiences. However, what about the key area of focus for Coin Center, which is impacting developers and users of truly decentralized tools and services?
At the institutional level, there is reason to believe that due to President Trump’s overall support for cryptocurrencies and his likely appointments at the SEC and Treasury, ongoing controversial rulemaking could be frozen or even abandoned. This would be a positive outcome, as the SEC’s transaction redefinition and the IRS’s broker-dealer rule for non-custodial developers hang like a sword over our heads.
It is less certain that the new administration will have any interest in scaling back the excessive sanctions and anti-money laundering policies that are at the heart of Quadrant 4. However, we remain hopeful that even under a friendlier SEC, heavy-handed surveillance and control policies will continue to keep innovators out of the United States, stifle development, and deprive ordinary Americans of the benefits of these technologies (but do little to prevent criminals and terrorists from using them).
We are also optimistic that Congress may take a larger role in opposing surveillance issues. Members have sent letters criticizing the implementation of 6050I, the sanctioning of Tornado Cash, and the prosecution of unlicensed money transmitters. Bills like the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act would provide a legislative solution to the prosecution of unlicensed money transmitters, and we are prepared to find a bipartisan path forward to push for its passage.
We look forward to working with the new administration on this topic, and if we can make our case persuasively, they will give it a fair hearing. America’s constitutional rights, especially our respect for free speech and our vigilance against warrantless search and seizure, have a long history of ensuring that this is the best place to build and use cryptocurrencies and open blockchain networks. Being “pro-crypto” doesn’t just mean choosing friendlier agency heads or implementing pro-business regulations. It means something deeply American: standing up for privacy and speech in the most difficult moments, especially when national security interests run high and the shadows of crime and terrorism temporarily overshadow our freedom, privacy, and openness.