U.S. Senator Cynthia Lummis recently posted “Bitcoin laser eyes” on X, showing her support for laws supporting the cryptocurrency. The move follows the passing of legislation H.J.Res. 109 in the Senate, which aims to overturn the SEC’s Staff Accounting Bulletin (SAB) No. 121. Senator Lummis Advocates for Bitcoin Legislation U.S. Senator Cynthia Lummis, representing Wyoming, is well-known for her advocacy of Bitcoin. She views the asset as a dependable store of value and a safeguard against inflation. Serving on the Senate Banking Committee, she aims to enforce a regulatory framework that fosters crypto innovation while safeguarding consumers. We are so ₿ack. pic.twitter.com/ckHmXMHFL8 — Senator Cynthia Lummis (@SenLummis) May 16, 2024 The Senate recently passed
Topics:
Wayne Jones considers the following as important: AA News
This could be interesting, too:
Wayne Jones writes Hashdex Files S-1 for First ETF Holding Bitcoin and Ethereum in the US
Chayanika Deka writes Scaramucci Slams Claims of Harris’s Anti-Crypto Bias, Critiques Trump’s Transactional Approach
Wayne Jones writes Celebrity Meme Coins Plunge 94% From Peak Values on Average: Data
Mandy Williams writes Marathon Digital Increases Bitcoin Stash With 0M Purchase
U.S. Senator Cynthia Lummis recently posted “Bitcoin laser eyes” on X, showing her support for laws supporting the cryptocurrency.
The move follows the passing of legislation H.J.Res. 109 in the Senate, which aims to overturn the SEC’s Staff Accounting Bulletin (SAB) No. 121.
Senator Lummis Advocates for Bitcoin Legislation
U.S. Senator Cynthia Lummis, representing Wyoming, is well-known for her advocacy of Bitcoin. She views the asset as a dependable store of value and a safeguard against inflation. Serving on the Senate Banking Committee, she aims to enforce a regulatory framework that fosters crypto innovation while safeguarding consumers.
We are so ₿ack. pic.twitter.com/ckHmXMHFL8
— Senator Cynthia Lummis (@SenLummis) May 16, 2024
The Senate recently passed legislation targeting the dismantling of SAB 121, which imposes stringent restrictions on financial institutions, preventing them from acting as custodians for digital assets like Bitcoin. Under the Congressional Review Act, H.J.Res. 109 aims to eliminate these barriers, allowing regulated financial firms to provide custody services for cryptocurrencies.
Prior to the legislation’s passage, Senator Lummis vocalized her support for overturning SAB 121. She denounced it as a rule disguised as accounting guidance crafted and implemented by SEC staff without majority commission approval.
Recently, Senator Lummis, along with Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, penned a letter to U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland expressing concerns over the perceived divergence in the Department of Justice’s interpretation of “money transmission” regulations. They argued that this deviation from FinCEN’s established definition could criminalize fundamental aspects of crypto networks, affecting responsible financial innovation in the U.S.
White House Cites Investor Protection Concerns
Meanwhile, the White House has clearly stated its opposition to the passed legislation. A recent statement indicated that President Biden would veto the bill if it reached his desk. He might argue that overturning SAB 121 would undermine the SEC’s efforts to protect investors in the crypto-asset markets and safeguard the broader financial system.
Critics of SAB 121 believe that the rule is excessively restrictive and limits financial institutions’ ability to meet the growing demand for Bitcoin services. They argue that these institutions, with their established compliance frameworks and security protocols, are well-equipped to manage the risks associated with digital asset custody.
Despite the Senate’s approval, the future of H.J.Res. 109 remains uncertain due to the potential presidential veto. If President Biden follows through on his veto promise, it would stop the resolution’s progress, maintaining the current restrictions on financial institutions’ custody of digital assets. Biden has the option to sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action, in which case the bill would become law without his signature.