Elizabeth Warren could foresee the challenges that would come upon the industry as she promised to build an army against crypto. Most American politicians are hostile towards crypto not because they want to protect investors, but for different reasons. So, what is the real reason behind Warren’s hatred? Despite knowing that crypto crime revenue reports are wrong, why do they act as if they believe them?
Why Should Crypto Be Destroyed?
Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren became famous for her anti-crypto bills and keeps replacing each bill that fails to pass with a new one. Due to the upcoming elections next year, she won’t have much time to get the bill passed. Therefore, the irate Senator tried to turn the war in the Middle East into a driving force for her anti-crypto bill by hiding behind baseless allegations.
We had shared all the details of Warren’s latest draft. The Digital Asset Anti-Money Laundering Act threatens to undermine the fundamental principles of freedom and personal sovereignty that are central to crypto. Warren claims that her bill is necessary to combat illegal activities, but it is full of nonsense. Moreover, it is clear that its real purpose is to protect and serve big banks.
The bill co-sponsored by Kansas Senator Roger Marshall imposes the idea that digital assets are increasingly being used in criminal activities such as money laundering, ransomware attacks, and terrorism financing. This is reminiscent of the idea of destroying the US central bank because the dollar is used in human trafficking, drug sales, slave trade, terrorist attacks, and many other filthy activities. Only 0.5% of the world’s crime-tainted money is associated with crypto, and Warren claims the opposite.
The Big Banks Protection Act
The most dangerous part of the bill is the requirement for digital asset developers to comply with the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) responsibilities and Know Your Customer (KYC) requirements. This section, filled with absurdities that make identity verification mandatory even on DeFi platforms and are technically impossible to implement, guarantees the creation of an alternative to the existing system forever.
Although she claims to act in the name of national security, it is certain that the bill has no benefit other than limiting the competition created by cryptocurrencies for big banks. People should continue to pay double-digit transaction fees for international money transfers, wait for days, and remain dependent on banks. This is the unwritten clause of the bill.
While preventing illegal transactions is very important, the rule in the bill that requires banks and money service businesses to verify customer identities and submit reports on certain transactions involving non-custodial wallets could turn into a witch hunt. We are fining you for using a DeFi wallet? Or our bank does not want to work with you because you use a DeFi wallet? How do these sound?
