The Biden Administration Is Easing Up on Crypto (a Vibes Analysis)

CoinDesk · 2024-05-21T18:13:05.000Z

The Biden administration’s stance on crypto appears to be softening. I feel comfortable saying this, despite the yearslong “whole-of-government” onslaught against the industry, due to a few key advancements in recent weeks. Note: The views expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of CoinDesk, Inc. or its owners and affiliates. This is an excerpt from The Node newsletter, a daily roundup of the most pivotal crypto news on CoinDesk and beyond. You can subscribe to get the full newsletter here. First, and perhaps most significantly, Monday’s news that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) may be gearing up to approve spot ether exchange-traded funds (ETFs). This would be a major reversal in fortune for an asset class assumed to be dead-on-arrival, especially considering the securities watchdog has recently been probing prominent Ethereum-related institutions. While much of this is just speculation, based partially on words heard through the grapeview (i.e. “sources with direct knowledge of the situation”), it is telling that the SEC has asked for amended filings from prospect ETH ETF exchanges on an expedited basis. It would be an odd move if the agency planned to reject these applications outright. Just yesterday, Bloomberg Intelligence placed the odds of an SEC approval of spot ETH ETFs at 25%. Today, it stands at 75% likely that these products – which would likely draw institutional capital into the second-largest crypto asset by market cap, in the same way bitcoin benefited from its own cluster of ETFs – will launch this year. (The SEC is expected to make a decision on VanEck’s spot ether ETF on May 23.) Secondly, last week a bipartisan bill called the Deploying American Blockchains Act of 2023 was passed with a margin of 334 to 79 by House representatives. While modest in scope, the bill would enable the Secretary of Commerce, currently Gina Raimondo, “to take actions necessary and appropriate to promote the competitiveness of the United States” in the blockchain industry. See also: Why the SEC Shouldn't Classify ETH as a Security | Opinion This comes ahead of the Senate’s vote on the Financial Innovation and Technology for the 21st Century Act (FIT21), considered to be the most significant piece of crypto-specific legislation with the greatest likelihood of actually becoming law. As my colleague Nikhilesh De astutely points out: “House Democratic leaders on the Financial Services and Agriculture Committees told their members that while they oppose the FIT21 bill, they wouldn't actively whip against it – in other words, they essentially told their members to vote how they see fit.” This is similar to recent votes in the House and Senate to repeal the SEC's controversial Staff Accounting Bulletin 121, which imposed severe capital requirements on crypto custodians and all but foreclosed the possibility of banks moving into the space (and strongly opposed by both the crypto and TradFi communities). The theory is, when President Joseph Biden vowed to veto the measure to repeal SAB121, he cleared a path for congress members – including prominent Democrats like Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Finance Committee Chair Ron Wyden (D-OR) – to vote their conscience. It remains to be seen whether Biden will veto the measure, despite the fact that the independent Government Accountability Office (GAO) said the SEC inappropriately imposed the guidance. However, the important thing here is that sane, bipartisan, crypto rulemaking is possible, despite the opposition of figures like arch crypto skeptic Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA). Speaking of which, Warren may be losing influence in the Biden Administration. Yesterday, Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Chairman Martin Gruenberg announced he would be stepping down after the Senate Banking Committee Chair, Sherod Brown, called for his resignation. While the move does not directly pertain to crypto, it is worth mentioning that Gruenberg is a known confidant of Sen. Warren – and their view of crypto is largely cut from the same cloth. Under Gruenberg’s leadership, for instance, the FDIC took a hard line against crypto during the financial crisis in 2023 that brought down three medium-sized banks. Although it largely cited poor risk-management and incompetent leadership, the FDIC also said Signature Bank’s “association with and reliance on crypto industry deposits” was a major cause for its failure in its report. That same year the agency officially added crypto to its annual report on risks facing U.S. banks and began entering into “robust supervisory discussions” with the firms under its charge. Further, Castle Island Ventures co-founder Nic Carter considers Gruenberg to be one of the major “architects” of what he called Operation Choke Point 2.0, or a series of maneuvers by the U.S. government to systemically cripple the crypto industry (the name is a callback to the Obama era effort to de-bank unsavory industries). Indeed, following the collapse of FTX, the White House issued its first fact sheet related to crypto, essentially calling for a crackdown. See also: The Reality Behind the Crypto Banking Crackdown | Opinion To be sure, there are a few major caveats to consider here. First of all, Gruenberg resigned under political pressure following a Wall Street Journal report on widespread evidence of sexual harassment at the FDIC. The septuagenarian himself wasn’t accused of harassment, however he did allow a toxic workplace culture to fester – which is why Sen. Brown called for his ouster (which Sen. Warren called “politically motivated”). All of this is to say that crypto is not a motivating factor here, although some political commentators are looking at the Gruenberg situation as a sign of the Warren faction’s waning influence. For instance, John Deaton, who is challenging Sen. Warren for her senatorial seat this November, said it was “shameful” how Warren “circled the wagons to keep one of her disgraced puppets in place.” It’s also important to note that Congress is not the White House, and the White House is not the SEC. In other words, there is no real reason to assume that the Biden administration is suddenly telling either Gary Gensler or legislators to, like, take it easy on crypto. These are all discrete events, but they’re all positive developments for crypto. Regarding the possibility of ETH ETF approval, the going idea is that the SEC was resistant because it wasn’t having productive meetings with prospective issuers. And “the fact that their meetings became more recently productive doesn't necessarily mean there was a policy reversal,” as CoinDesk policy expert Jesse Hamilton said. But what if there really were a driving force behind all of these developments? What explains the widespread sea change? And why would a Dem-controlled government suddenly become pro-crypto now? The 100 pound gorilla “The backdrop to all of this is an election where the Republican party's standard-bearer, former President Donald Trump, has explicitly made an appeal to crypto voters as part of his strategy,” De said. Indeed, the former president has seemingly intuited that the crypto contingent is something of a well-heeled political force, and has been currying favor. There are a few cynics who argue the billionaire real estate developer is primarily motivated by his bags (Trump has issued several NFT series, and holds a fair amount of ETH and other tokens), but that seems needlessly narrow a view. The alignment makes perfect sense: Crypto gets peoples’ attention. And Trump likes to get attention. Crypto also gets a certain type of person angry, and it just so happens that these are the same people Trump likes to get angry. Crypto advocates also like powerful people willing to speak positively about crypto. And Trump likes his praise. Passionate crypto advocates like Messari founder Ryan Selkis (a Consensus speaker, by the way) have been saying for years that the industry needs to organize into a coherent political block. In recent months, this has become more of a reality. Experts say crypto-focused political action committees (PACs) have more influence in Washington D.C. than ever, and are spending tens of millions of dollars across the country to influence elections up and down the ballot. See also: Bitcoin Is Free and Fair but Not Progressive | Opinion And while both parties could conceivably claim the “apolitical” crypto narrative for their own, there is something to the idea that the industry’s somewhat contradictory situation of being both rooted in Occupy Wall Street-era populism while also most frequently being associated with the “hilariously rich” is undeniably Trumpian. To some extent, I’m surprised it took so long for Trump to come around to it. Which gets us to the main point: Why now? It is clear that Trump has come out in support of crypto because it is a wedge issue he can use against his rival, President Biden. While the general public is not likely clued into the nitty gritty politics of crypto regulation, a surprising amount of registered voters hold crypto and have a positive sentiment towards it. In particular, nearly 25% of self-identified independent voters (i.e. the key “swing voter”) have bought crypto. And that number will only increase over time, especially following the launch of crypto ETFs. On the other side of the equation, because Trump has set himself up as an oppositional figure to the Biden administration’s slow boiling war against crypto (which has literally won over at least a handful of voters who despise his other policies), the easiest way for Biden to solve the issue is to either do a 180 on crypto himself or simply make it less of a problem. This is compounded by the fact that, while the majority of Americans still do not interact with or care that much about crypto, there have been a series of missteps by regulators that have garnered something almost akin to sympathy for the industry. The biggest bloody nose being the SEC’s handling of approving bitcoin ETFs, which was called “arbitrary and capricious” by an appeals court. But there is a growing sense that this same cavalier and biased view carries through all of the Biden administration’s crypto efforts. Americans want crypto to be safe and well regulated, they want consumer protections; they do not want arcane debates about whether an asset is a security. Moreover, it is conceivable that a strong reaction to the industry’s cataclysmic failures in 2022 was politically advantageous but now that prices are climbing again a heavy handed approach seems both like a waste of government resources and potentially overreaching. This is to say nothing of the fact that provoking the crypto industry always garners backlash from insiders. Again, all of this is mere speculation: there is no direct evidence that Biden is reversing course. It is significant that a major piece of crypto legislation has made it this far, that ETH ETFs being approved is back in play and that Trump has won over the “single issue” crypto voters. Consider this a vibes analysis, a theory that can never be proven but can grow stronger if more positive advancements like this happen. At the end of the day, politics, like crypto, really is all about vibes.

拜登政府對加密貨幣的立場似乎有所軟化。儘管多年來“全政府”對該行業進行了猛烈攻擊，但由於最近幾周取得了一些關鍵進展，我可以放心地說這一點。
注意：本專欄中表達的觀點爲作者的觀點，並不一定反映 CoinDesk, Inc. 或其所有者和附屬公司的觀點。這是 The Node 新聞通訊的摘錄，該通訊每日彙總 CoinDesk 及其他網站上最重要的加密新聞。您可以在此處訂閱以獲取完整的新聞通訊。
首先，或許也是最重要的，週一有消息稱，美國證券交易委員會 (SEC) 可能正準備批准現貨以太幣交易所交易基金 (ETF)。對於一個被認爲一蹶不振的資產類別來說，這將是一次重大的命運逆轉，尤其是考慮到證券監管機構最近一直在調查知名的以太坊相關機構。
雖然這些消息大部分只是猜測，部分基於 Grapeview 的消息（即“直接瞭解情況的消息來源”），但 SEC 要求潛在 ETH ETF 交易所儘快提交修改後的文件，這很能說明問題。如果該機構計劃直接拒絕這些申請，那將是一個奇怪的舉動。
就在昨天，彭博情報 (Bloomberg Intelligence) 估計美國證券交易委員會 (SEC) 批准現貨 ETH ETF 的可能性爲 25%。如今，這些產品今年推出的可能性爲 75%，這些產品可能會吸引機構資本進入市值第二大的加密資產，就像比特幣從其自己的 ETF 集羣中受益一樣。（SEC 預計將於 5 月 23 日對 VanEck 的現貨以太幣 ETF 做出決定。）
其次，上週，衆議院以 334 票對 79 票通過了一項名爲《2023 年部署美國區塊鏈法案》的兩黨法案。儘管該法案的範圍不大，但它將使商務部長（現任吉娜·雷蒙多）“能夠採取必要和適當的行動，以提升美國在區塊鏈行業的競爭力”。
另請參閱：SEC 不應將 ETH 歸類爲證券的原因 | 觀點
這是在參議院就《21 世紀金融創新和技術法案》（FIT21）進行投票之前做出的決定，該法案被認爲是最重要的加密貨幣專項立法，最有可能真正成爲法律。正如我的同事 Nikhilesh De 敏銳地指出的那樣：
“衆議院金融服務和農業委員會的民主黨領導人告訴其成員，雖然他們反對 FIT21 法案，但他們不會積極反對它 - 換句話說，他們基本上告訴其成員按照他們認爲合適的方式進行投票。”
這與衆議院和參議院最近投票廢除美國證券交易委員會備受爭議的《會計公告 121》類似，該公告對加密貨幣託管人施加了嚴格的資本要求，幾乎排除了銀行進入該領域的可能性（並遭到加密貨幣和 TradFi 社區的強烈反對）。
理論上，當總統約瑟夫·拜登誓言否決廢除 SAB121 的措施時，他爲國會議員——包括參議院多數黨領袖查克·舒默 (紐約州民主黨人) 和財政委員會主席羅恩·懷登 (俄勒岡州民主黨人) 等著名民主黨人——憑良心投票掃清了道路。
儘管獨立政府問責局 (GAO) 表示 SEC 不恰當地實施了該指導意見，但拜登是否會否決該措施仍有待觀察。然而，這裏重要的是，儘管遭到像馬薩諸塞州民主黨參議員伊麗莎白·沃倫 (Elizabeth Warren) 這樣的加密貨幣懷疑論者的反對，但制定理智、兩黨一致的加密貨幣規則仍然是可能的。
說到這裏，沃倫在拜登政府中的影響力可能正在減弱。昨天，聯邦存款保險公司董事長馬丁·格倫伯格宣佈，在參議院銀行委員會主席謝羅德·布朗要求他辭職後，他將辭職。
雖然此舉與加密貨幣沒有直接關係，但值得一提的是，格倫伯格是沃倫參議員的密友，他們對加密貨幣的看法基本一致。例如，在格倫伯格的領導下，聯邦存款保險公司 (FDIC) 在 2023 年金融危機期間對加密貨幣採取了強硬立場，導致三家中型銀行倒閉。
儘管 FDIC 在很大程度上將其歸咎於糟糕的風險管理和無能的領導層，但它也表示，Signature Bank“與加密貨幣行業存款的關聯和依賴”是其未能通過報告的主要原因。同年，該機構正式將加密貨幣納入其關於美國銀行面臨的風險的年度報告中，並開始與其負責的公司進行“嚴格的監管討論”。
此外，Castle Island Ventures 聯合創始人 Nic Carter 認爲 Gruenberg 是他所謂的 Operation Choke Point 2.0 的主要“設計者”之一，該行動是美國政府爲系統性地削弱加密貨幣行業而採取的一系列舉措（該名稱是對奧巴馬時代打擊不良行業的努力的回顧）。事實上，在 FTX 倒閉後，白宮發佈了第一份與加密貨幣相關的情況說明書，本質上是在呼籲打擊加密貨幣。
另請參閱：加密貨幣銀行打擊行動背後的現實 | 觀點
可以肯定的是，這裏有幾個主要注意事項需要考慮。首先，在《華爾街日報》報道聯邦存款保險公司存在大量性騷擾證據後，格倫伯格迫於政治壓力辭職。這位 70 多歲的老人本人並沒有受到騷擾指控，但他確實讓有毒的工作場所文化滋生——這就是布朗參議員要求罷免他的原因（沃倫參議員稱這是“出於政治動機”）。
所有這些都表明加密貨幣並不是這裏的激勵因素，儘管一些政治評論員將格倫伯格的情況視爲沃倫派系影響力減弱的標誌。例如，今年 11 月將挑戰沃倫參議員席位的約翰·迪頓 (John Deaton) 表示，沃倫“圍成一圈以保住她名譽掃地的傀儡之一”的做法是“可恥的”。
還要注意的是，國會不是白宮，白宮也不是美國證券交易委員會。換句話說，沒有理由認爲拜登政府突然告訴 Gary Gensler 或立法者對加密貨幣放鬆警惕。這些都是獨立事件，但對加密貨幣來說都是積極的發展。
關於 ETH ETF 獲批的可能性，目前流行的觀點是，SEC 之所以持抵制態度，是因爲它沒有與潛在發行人舉行富有成效的會議。正如 CoinDesk 政策專家 Jesse Hamilton 所說，“他們的會議最近變得更加富有成效，並不一定意味着政策發生了逆轉。”
但如果所有這些發展背後真的有一個驅動力呢？如何解釋這種廣泛的鉅變？爲什麼民主黨控制的政府現在突然變得支持加密貨幣？
100磅的大猩猩
德說：“這一切的背景是，共和黨的旗手、前總統唐納德·特朗普在選舉中明確地呼籲加密貨幣選民作爲其戰略的一部分。”
事實上，這位前總統似乎已經意識到加密貨幣羣體是一股富裕的政治力量，並一直在討好他們。一些持懷疑態度的人認爲，這位億萬富翁房地產開發商的主要動機是他的包包（特朗普發行了多個 NFT 系列，並持有相當數量的 ETH 和其他代幣），但這似乎是不必要的狹隘觀點。
這種對比非常合理：加密貨幣吸引了人們的注意力。而特朗普喜歡引起人們的注意。加密貨幣也會激怒某些人，而特朗普喜歡激怒這些人。加密貨幣的支持者也喜歡有權勢的人願意積極談論加密貨幣。而特朗普喜歡他的讚美。
熱情的加密貨幣倡導者，如 Messari 創始人 Ryan Selkis（順便說一句，他是一位共識發言人）多年來一直在說，該行業需要組織成一個連貫的政治集團。近幾個月來，這已成爲現實。專家表示，以加密貨幣爲重點的政治行動委員會 (PAC) 在華盛頓特區的影響力比以往任何時候都大，並且在全國各地花費數千萬美元來影響選舉結果。
另請參閱：比特幣是自由和公平的，但不是進步的 | 觀點
儘管兩黨都可以宣稱加密貨幣的“非政治性”敘事是他們自己的，但有觀點認爲，該行業有點矛盾的情況，既植根於“佔領華爾街”時代的民粹主義，又經常與“富豪”聯繫在一起，這無疑是特朗普式的。在某種程度上，我很驚訝特朗普花了這麼長時間才接受這一點。
這讓我們回到主要問題：爲什麼是現在？很明顯，特朗普之所以支持加密貨幣，是因爲這是一個他可以用來對付競爭對手拜登總統的挑撥問題。雖然公衆可能不瞭解加密貨幣監管的詳細政治，但令人驚訝的是，大量登記選民持有加密貨幣並對其持積極態度。特別是，近 25% 的自認爲獨立選民（即關鍵的“搖擺選民”）購買了加密貨幣。而且這個數字只會隨着時間的推移而增加，尤其是在加密貨幣 ETF 推出之後。
另一方面，由於特朗普將自己定位爲拜登政府針對加密貨幣的緩慢戰爭的反對者（這場戰爭實際上贏得了至少一小部分鄙視其其他政策的選民），拜登解決這個問題的最簡單方法就是自己對加密貨幣來個 180 度的大轉彎，或者乾脆讓它不再是一個大問題。
更糟糕的是，儘管大多數美國人仍然不太接觸或關心加密貨幣，但監管機構的一系列失誤幾乎爲該行業贏得了同情。最令人痛心的是 SEC 對比特幣 ETF 的批准，上訴法院稱其“武斷且反覆無常”。
但越來越多的人認爲，拜登政府在加密貨幣領域的所有努力都帶有這種傲慢和偏見。美國人希望加密貨幣是安全的、受到良好監管的，他們希望保護消費者權益；他們不希望就某項資產是否屬於證券展開無謂的爭論。
此外，可以想象，對 2022 年該行業災難性失敗的強烈反應在政治上是有利的，但現在價格再次攀升，強硬的做法似乎既浪費政府資源，又可能越權。更不用說挑釁加密行業總是會引起業內人士的強烈反對。
再次重申，所有這些都只是猜測：沒有直接證據表明拜登正在改變方向。一項重要的加密貨幣立法已經取得了如此大的進展，ETH ETF 的獲批又重新開始，特朗普贏得了“單一問題”加密貨幣選民的支持，這些都很重要。可以把這看作是一種氛圍分析，一種永遠無法證實的理論，但如果出現更多這樣的積極進展，這種理論就會變得更加強大。
歸根結底，政治就像加密貨幣一樣，其實都關乎氛圍。

創作者的更多內容

實時新聞

創作者的更多內容

實時新聞

熱門文章