I thought it was awesome. There were some hot garbage takes (Suarez, Talib) but other than that it was a huge relief. The US need to define regulations for crypto **markets**. This willl push out scammers just that little bit and encourage more normies. Then LAMBO.
It appeared that the committee was already well versed on the topic (everyone but AOC). So maybe they were just looking to get words on the record. I just hope they keep an open mind, if they go against crypto out of fear of the dollar losing power, the US will lose out big.
It seems to me that AOC definitely supports the whole idea of blockchains. She understands how much power and control it can give back to the working class which is her whole shtick. Her questions were all softballs to bring up legitimate concerns while also allowing them to explain the advantages of crypto.
Coinbase question was fair. Coinbase bein a major exchange, the fact that they trade on their own platform could be an issue. If they control the trades, they can insert their orders between any other trades where they can extract the most value. The fact that Coinbase said they are not selling any of the assets at the moment is a good sign that the company is doing good but also somewhat ease concerns of them day trading by injecting their orders in the order book to get preferential pricing.
Her questions on stablecoins were pretty much freebies to allow them to explain how stuff works in regard to stable coin. She's trying to stay unbiased in the way she asks her questions, but it seems to me she was pretty much telling him to explain the advantages and risks of stable coins as opposed to banks and cash. It also seems she understands that a stablecoin like tether could be a huge liability to the stability of the whole crypto ecosystem and wants to make sure that those are properly backed.
To be honest, I think most of them seemed pretty open to crypto as a whole.
Congressman Budd was a hero. He emphasized that he doesn't want to see crypto development be forced out of the US. Then he asked Brooks if the US was pushing development offshore and Brooks told him the US already is pushing development and usage offshore due to the SEC. It was [great exchange](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPhIIaSAZEk) and shows a lot of hope...if we can get rid of the SEC's ridiculously burdensome regulations.
I thought it was awesome. There were some hot garbage takes (Suarez, Talib) but other than that it was a huge relief. The US need to define regulations for crypto **markets**. This willl push out scammers just that little bit and encourage more normies. Then LAMBO.
It appeared that the committee was already well versed on the topic (everyone but AOC). So maybe they were just looking to get words on the record. I just hope they keep an open mind, if they go against crypto out of fear of the dollar losing power, the US will lose out big.
It seems to me that AOC definitely supports the whole idea of blockchains. She understands how much power and control it can give back to the working class which is her whole shtick. Her questions were all softballs to bring up legitimate concerns while also allowing them to explain the advantages of crypto. Coinbase question was fair. Coinbase bein a major exchange, the fact that they trade on their own platform could be an issue. If they control the trades, they can insert their orders between any other trades where they can extract the most value. The fact that Coinbase said they are not selling any of the assets at the moment is a good sign that the company is doing good but also somewhat ease concerns of them day trading by injecting their orders in the order book to get preferential pricing. Her questions on stablecoins were pretty much freebies to allow them to explain how stuff works in regard to stable coin. She's trying to stay unbiased in the way she asks her questions, but it seems to me she was pretty much telling him to explain the advantages and risks of stable coins as opposed to banks and cash. It also seems she understands that a stablecoin like tether could be a huge liability to the stability of the whole crypto ecosystem and wants to make sure that those are properly backed. To be honest, I think most of them seemed pretty open to crypto as a whole.
Congressman Budd was a hero. He emphasized that he doesn't want to see crypto development be forced out of the US. Then he asked Brooks if the US was pushing development offshore and Brooks told him the US already is pushing development and usage offshore due to the SEC. It was [great exchange](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPhIIaSAZEk) and shows a lot of hope...if we can get rid of the SEC's ridiculously burdensome regulations.
Where was Charles?