• Public

  • Public
  • Network
  • Groups
  • Featured
  • Popular
  • People

Altogether this seems like... nothing much. The regulatory changes alluded to here were already likely to happen with or without an executive order, this order now dictates that they happen by recommendation of (gigantic) committee. The committee itself also cannot directly make changes, but rather recommendation changes to be submitted for approval. The Biden executive order also didn’t really do anything, and so rescinding it doesn’t really rescind anything. This is mostly symbolic, as the Biden EO strongly emphasized the need for consumer protections and the risks posed by digital assets. As for the Treasury Framework, that mostly pertained to collaborating with other countries on digital assets (including on law enforcement activities to handle illicit transactions using crypto), so I’ll be curious to see what is downstream of that. The CBDC prohibition is, again, entirely symbolic. As I mentioned last issue [I74], many Republican crypto enthusiasts enjoy railing against the specter of a CBDC, despite the fact that there has been no effort to actually create one in the United States. However, this may anger some in the Ripple camp, as the company has been developing a platform for CBDCs. Ripple was the second largest donor to the Fairshake crypto super PAC.