Senator Elizabeth Warren criticized the Republicans’ conduct in proposing crypto market structure regulation. They released a completed draft bill without consulting with Democrats or revealing crypto industry feedback.
Warren’s office shared these comments exclusively with BeInCrypto. Several pro-crypto Democrats released a broad framework for their ideal legislation, but it’s much less detailed and actionable.
SponsoredWarren Decries Crypto Draft Bill
Last Friday, Republicans on the Senate Banking Committee released a draft of potential market structure legislation. This 182-page document included many provisions that differed from previous crypto bills, causing Senator Elizabeth Warren to issue a statement on the Republicans’ conduct:
“Producing a new crypto regulatory regime requires legislation that can pass both the House and the Senate… So far, instead of working with us, Republicans have produced two partisan drafts – including a recent proposal that reportedly reflects secret feedback from industry and other stakeholders that Republicans refuse to share with Committee Democrats or the public,” Warren claimed.
Warren, ranking member of the Senate Banking Committee, is specifically concerned with how opaque the Republicans have been in devising these crypto bills. For all we know, this draft legislation could have been entirely written by lobbyists.
She is arguably one of the Senate’s largest anti-crypto voices, but pointed out how her fellow Democrats have been working on constructive market structure proposals. Specifically, 12 Democratic Senators released a framework for their vision of a favorable bill this morning.
The document’s signatories do not include Warren herself, but it features most of the Senate Banking Committee’s Democrats and a few other liberal crypto allies. In other words, this looks like a good-faith effort to reach a favorable outcome.
A Structural Disadvantage?
Still, this framework is a six-page list of general priorities, while the Republicans released a finished and complex draft of possible legislation. In doing so, they have taken the initiative with this procedure, which could give them a significant advantage.
SponsoredWarren criticized the behind-the-scenes nature of this action, questioning the influence of crypto lobbyists. If this draft was written by both parties, it’d be clear what role they had. Today, however, their position is less certain:
“To succeed in passing a new law, the Majority must share stakeholder feedback publicly and work with Democrats on strong bipartisan legislation that addresses the real and serious concerns with their current industry-written proposals,” she claimed.
Additionally, the notion of bipartisanship is particularly thorny here. On one hand, the Republicans on the Senate Banking Committee are apparently better organized than the Democrats, setting the terms of the debate around their completed draft legislation.
However, GOP Committee members also saluted the Dems’ framework document in a clear bid for cooperation:
In other words, Warren does not seem satisfied with this vision of bipartisanship for crypto regulation. Although pro-crypto Democrats are nominally welcome to help refine proposed drafts, the original documents were created without their input.
This puts their efforts at a serious disadvantage, arguing over terms that they did not have a hand in defining.
Many elected officials, pro-crypto or otherwise, are very concerned with bipartisan outreach. However, this draft legislation maintains the appearance of cooperation while practically restricting the Democrats’ real influence.
Between this and the undisclosed efforts of crypto lobbyists, Senator Warren has a lot to be uneasy about. For a crypto skeptic like her, creating a truly equitable legislative solution might be especially difficult under these conditions.
