Transaction

j"19HxigV4QyBv3tHpQVcUEQyq1pzZVdoAutMü“Clarity” is the word politicians use when they are about to create more discretion. A 278-page bill does not reduce uncertainty; it moves uncertainty from the market into the hands of regulators, because the real decisions will be made later, through definitions, interpretations, and enforcement choices that can change with the politics of the day. The headline parts that sound reassuring—blocking a retail CBDC at the Federal Reserve, limiting direct Fed services to individuals, and rejecting the use of a CBDC as a tool of monetary policy—are the easy bits. They cost little, offend fewer interests, and allow everyone to claim they opposed a surveillance currency. But those lines are not the centre of the bill. The centre is the classification machine: who counts as “in control,” what counts as a “network token” versus an “ancillary asset,” when something becomes a “digital asset security,” and how a project is forced to prove it has escaped the shadow of “common control.” That is not neutral. It is the regulatory state reserving the right to decide who is allowed to operate. Instead of a simple rule—fraud is illegal, theft is illegal, misrepresentation is illegal—the bill builds a permission structure. It invites agencies to treat ordinary technical coordination as “control,” ordinary distribution as “promotion,” and ordinary market-making as something suspect. That means compliance becomes the product, not the protocol. Then there is the predictable moral cover: “illicit finance.” Every expansion of monitoring power is sold as protection against criminals. Yet the people who write these things rarely pay for the costs they impose on honest users, small businesses, or innovators who cannot afford permanent legal overhead. The result is not safety; it is consolidation. Big firms can buy compliance. Smaller firms die, or never start. So the question is not whether 128 pages or 278 pages contain the right buzzwords. The question is whether the bill limits government to punishing actual wrongdoing—or whether it grants government the power to decide what is permissible before the fact. This reads far more like the latter. And when government holds that power, “clarity” becomes whatever the regulators say it is. text/plainutf-8file.txt
|"1PuQa7K62MiKCtssSLKy1kh56WWU7MtUR5SETtreechat_post_id$44f53bf0-0611-4b43-8222-9575c478e61d