More

    The White House Considers Bitcoin And Crypto “A Matter Of National Security”


    The White House is stepping in. Started on the backside, now we’re “a matter of national security.” According to Barrons and Bloomberg, the Biden administration is placing itself in the midst of cryptocurrencies and Bitcoin regulation. Apparently, the White House will get enter from a number of companies after which draft a centralized all-encompassing coverage. It’s “a matter of national security,” in any case.

    Related Reading | The SEC Will Not Ban Crypto, That Would Be Up To Congress, Says Gary Gensler

    What does all of this imply? That’s what we’re right here to discover. With the restricted info obtainable, that’s.

    The White House Wants To Regulate What?

    According to Barrons, the White House needs readability round Bitcoin, “cryptos, stablecoins, and NFTs.” More particularly: 

    “The Biden administration is preparing to release an executive action that will task federal agencies with regulating digital assets such as Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies as a matter of national security.”

    Bloomberg elaborates on the thought and lets us understand how superior this plan actually is:

    “Senior administration officials have held multiple meetings on the plan, which is being drafted as an executive order, said the people. The directive, which would be presented to President Joe Biden in the coming weeks, puts the White House at the center of Washington’s efforts to deal with cryptocurrencies.”

    Both publications discuss “the people” or “the person,” and admit that the White House refused to remark. However, all of it sounds set in stone. Barrons supply informed them, “This is designed to look holistically at digital assets and develop a set of policies that give coherency to what the government is trying to do in this space.” Also, “Because digital assets don’t stay in one country, it’s necessary to work with other countries on synchronization.”

    According to the publication, the companies concerned are: “The State Department, Treasury Department, National Economic Council, and Council of Economic Advisers,” and “The White House National Security Council.”

    BTCUSD price chart for 01/28/2022 - TradingView

    BTC worth chart for 01/28/2022 on Bitfinex | Source: BTC/USD on TradingView.com

    What Does This Mean For The SEC?

    The massive loser in all of this appears to be Gary Gensler. The Securities and Exchange Commission that he leads is, or was, accountable for every part associated to cryptocurrency and Bitcoin regulation. The White House‘s new plan appears to bypass the group, searching for an all-encompassing nationwide coverage. Is this a good suggestion, although? At the very least, Gensler is nicely versed within the topic at hand. What did he do to upset the applecart? 

    Barrons once more:

    “Various agencies oversee the industry, including the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. But there’s no consensus on matters such as whether some tokens should be registered as securities, or how to oversee exchanges, stablecoins, and high-yield lending products.”

    Maybe the White House shouldn’t be happy with Gensler’s judgment? According to Bloomberg, “Some of those tasks will be meant to ensure that the U.S. remains competitive as the world increasingly adopts digital assets.” Is the White House seeking to calm down the Securities and Exchange Commission’s insurance policies? That would definitely shock the world. We wouldn’t depend on it, although.

    Related Reading | Biden Administration Drafting Bitcoin Regulation, Why It Could Be Approved Soon

    At the top of their article, Bloomberg poses one other risk:

    “A CBDC could be a way for the U.S. to stay competitive with the explosive growth of private cryptocurrencies and coins produced by other nations, including China. The Fed said it does not intend to move forward without the support of the White House and Congress.”

    Is the White House paving the way in which for his or her CBDC? Do they not see the immense benefit that the US-based stablecoins have already got out there? Are they as clueless as Bloomberg in considering {that a} CBDC will permit them “to stay competitive”? That definitely wouldn’t shock the world.

    Featured Image by 12019 on Pixabay | Charts by TradingView



    Source link

    Latest stories

    - Advertisement - spot_img

    You might also like...