The hard truth is that the Clarity Act is an anti-crypto bill
The author argues that the proposed 'Clarity Act' in the U.S. is misnamed, as it focuses primarily on regulating crypto intermediaries rather than fostering the underlying peer-to-peer technology. The piece contends that the bill prioritizes traditional financial structures over the decentralized ethos of the original Bitcoin whitepaper.
Why it matters
This critique challenges the narrative that current legislative efforts are inherently 'pro-crypto,' suggesting they may instead entrench existing financial middlemen.
In Washington, the “Clarity Act” and the “crypto bill” have become interchangeable . The assumption is that if you support crypto , you support Clarity; if you oppose C larity, you oppose crypto.
That framing is remarkably convenient. It is also wrong.
For years, the crypto community endured congressional paralysis as a parade of crypto bills stalled out. (Let’s observe a small moment of silence for the Token Taxonomy Act , the DCCPA , and FIT21 , to name a few inhabitants of the legislative graveyard.)
Throughout the legislative paralysis, the crypto community survived the Gensler era of enforcement actions that should have never been brought , as well as the catastrophic collapses of Celsius, Voyager, and FTX, all made worse because the laws were insufficient to govern the industry .
At some point, almost any comprehensive bill gave the illusion of progress.
Get smarter about the news
Sign up free for a feed built around what you actually care about, Dive Deeper research on any story, and the full text of every article.
Create free accountAlready have an account? Sign in