pull down to refresh
193 sats \ 3 replies \ @Arceris 30 Nov \ on: 'Government has become addicted to indirect regulation' Politics_And_Law
I agree with you. Just because Ripple & other crypto projects are scams, doesn’t mean that the government is justified in applying unconstitutional and fraudulent practices to sanction them.
Of course, government will do this, and no one will be punished, but it doesn’t mean it’s justified.
Indirect regulation is too easy, too opaque, and too difficult to appeal. Which is exactly why they want it.
Well with the fall of Chevron though it now is a hell of a lot easier to go after this type of enforcement and I think next year we are going to see Congress hit a ton of spaces with a new approach.
By any chance did you see the Rogan Podcast with Marc Andreessen over AI? I do not see the incoming Admin and Congress really allowing such a thing to happen. JD Vance is a huge hater of big tech and I don't see him folding esp. with the venture capitol money on his side
reply
You’re correct that the incoming admin is likely to back way off on indirect regulation, especially in the crypto and oil & gas space. Not entirely sure about unilateral disarmament on the concept though (very happy to be proven wrong here!).
I’m not entirely sure that Loper Bright will strongly impact indirect regulation though. Chevron more allowed agencies to unilaterally impose direct regulation when they shouldn’t have that power.
Indirect regulation (at least as I understand it) is more of a “we have no power to force you to do this, but if you don’t, then you can expect us to be extra super thorough in going after what we can.”
Unless the Trump admin is able to put in place some guarantees, future administrations can and will reach for these tools again.
Of course, what I really want is unlimited personal liability for regulators who use their power to coerce others to engage in acts which would be unconstitutional for the regulator to do. One can dream.
Regardless, Jan 20 can’t come soon enough.
reply
You’re correct that the incoming admin is likely to back way off on indirect regulation, especially in the crypto and oil & gas space. Not entirely sure about unilateral disarmament on the concept though (very happy to be proven wrong here!).
Okay okay I can help here lol!!! The House the last two years has been building up staff support in areas that are not well or easily understood like AI and Blockchain for instance the House Bipartisan AI Task Force was stood up and our report should be coming out soon its over 256 pages and counting!
With regards to the indirect regulation idea I think your idea is correct but can be expanded into what I think of it as and that is "we don't know IF we have the power but we will force you until someone else (courts or Congress) tells us differently". Since the Secretary and head of the SEC assign/task the various departments with enforcement priorities I think the new Admin will be a lot more hands-off but and a huge but when you screw up and lets use FTX as an example the charges and the years for everyone will be MUCH more severe.
I think next Congress (Congress starts Jan 3rd and President starts Jan 20th) we will see a ton of legislation move through to codify things. This will highly likely be done via budget reconciliation since that gets rid of the 60-Senator filibuster issue unless Republican Sen. can find 6 Dems they can count on for a crypto package.
The other way which is something Biden is trying to execute now because the process to unravel it takes 3+ years is rules published in the Federal Register. He has hinted at moving to tie up a lot of public land oil and gas production this way and likely would have already finished this except for the way the rule was being interpreted it also would take out all solar, wind, and hydro production ideas as well. The big one is appliance efficiency which they are rushing to do and I want to say the Methane tax if I recall correctly!
reply