US House Committee on Financial Services Stablecoin Hearing Mega Roundup
Excerpt of Scores Submitted to PAC DAO from a longer thread on the US House Committee on Financial Services Stablecoin Hearing on Curve Market Cap.
Here’s the rundown of how individual members of the hearing performed. I’ve submitted these scores and comments to pac.xyz — if you disagree with any of these scores, this is the beauty of crowdsourcing the scoring process.
Maxine Waters (CA-43): -2
Her opening statement claimed the committee was at the "forefront of Congressional oversight of cutting edge technology." She must have been watching a different committee.
She then bragged about killing Facebook's cryptocurrency, and while I'm no fan of Zuckerberg, but outright suffocating innovation is a bizarre flex.
Patrick McHenry (NC-10): +5
As we’ve come to expect from Patrick McHenry, he delivered a phenomenal opening address. Our only question is if he prefers donations in Bitcoin, Ethereum, or some other cryptocurrency. PAC has a growing treasury burning a hole in its pocket.
Nydia Velazquez (NY-7): -2
Opens with not just Tether FUD, but Tether FUD from 2017. Complained that cryptocurrency investors were going to Puerto Rico… first off, don’t you represent NY, not Puerto Rico? Second of all, don’t most leaders usually want to attract wealthy investors, not repel them? Third, what does this have to do with stablecoins?
Ann Wagner (MO-2): +3
Major improvement from previous. Pushed back on the witness with regard to the federalism angle, and a really good to push the benefits.
Brad Sherman (CA-30): -5
Cripes, this joker again. Hasn’t Aarika Rhodes ousted him yet?
Here he complains that it’s not fair to compare the promise of cryptocurrency with the actual existing system. He draws the ridiculous analogy that stablecoins are useless, because if he wanted to buy a burger he’d have to “take an Uber” to Ohio to the only burger stand that accepts cryptocurrency. What a buffoonish argument.
To start with, anybody dumb enough to “take an Uber” from California to Ohio shouldn’t be regulating technology. Anyway, it’s ridiculous to compare adoption of two payment methods where the government is actively hostile towards one. Legislating in a way that actualizes the potential of promising new technology is absolutely what legislatures should do at the end of the day. Especially because the promise of the existing system is decline, while the promise of cryptocurrency is substantial.
By this logic, you can’t bother with regulating stablecoins today because they’re so small there’s almost no threat, but the purpose of the hearing is ostensibly to regulate them now before they grow large.
He also tries to position this as little people versus big crypto. Yes, I can’t think of any well funded organizations who would finance an attack on cryptocurrency… 🏦🏦🏦
Blaine Luetkemeyer (MO-3): -1
Something of a mixed bag. Complains that cryptocurrencies generally might undermine the dollar. But he gets that stablecoins actually enhance the dollar status, which the President's report omits. The witness only concedes this for bank-banked stablecoins :P
He later advocates hesitance for regulation and asks how the US may convince stablecoin users to move to actual dollars.
David Scott (GA-13): -1
Plus for highlighting the underbanked and increased access stablecoins could provide. But too much focus on “consumer protections.” On behalf of the community, we decline your offer of protection, thank you very much.
Bill Huizenga (MI-2) +4
Grilled the witness on Gensler's asinine "some stablecoins are securities" statement. More of this!
Al Green (TX-9): -4
Wants to use his time in a stablecoin hearing to talk about fluctuations in Dogecoin price and its foundation. Huh?
I guess his point is that some things are backed by nothing, and people should not be allowed to invest in nothing. Wonder what he thinks the dollar is backed by?
Why were you wearing a mask for a Zoom call?
Frank Lucas (OK-3): -2
Concern about backing, meh. But did at least ask if CFTC has sole authority, keep the broken SEC out of it.
Emmanuel Cleaver (MO-5):
"I've got Ponzi Paranoia" he claims. Great, we don't want paranoiacs in our industry or leading us. Step down please and make way for a diamond handed appointment with fewer imaginary medical issues.
Bill Posey (FL-8): -3
Wasted his time on Tether FUD, and wants to bring "protection." At least a nod to innovation and alternative regulations.
Ed Perlmutter (CO-7): -1
A long meandering rambling telling boomer stories about silver or money markets or something. He seemed more disoriented and confused than an active threat. He wants to know if they should do something before it all goes to heck. Um, have you read the last month of news? It “goes to heck” on a near hourly basis.
Andy Barr (KY-6): +4
Seems to get the value of the dollar is reinforced by stablecoins, and that there is room for different types of stablecoins. He also worries about pushing crypto talent overseas. Overall a good advocate for the community.
Jim Himes (CT-4): -3
Don’t trust this guy any farther than we can throw him. He tried to temper his statements a bit here, reviewing sensible regulations in the past. But we’ll never forgive his attempt to slip some nasty surprises into legislation, and he’s clearly looking for an opportunity to do so again. Let’s primary this snake.
Roger Williams (TX-25): +2
He obviously was just reading some canned statement somebody wrote for him, but it was pro-stablecoins so we’ll take it.
Gregory Meeks (NY-5): +3
Pointed out that the President’s Working Group would consolidate the entire industry in the hand of banks and not the underbanked. Overall quite good, however, minus a few points for pushing KYC.
French Hill (AR-2): +4
Cited a lot of the benefits of stablecoins, had a strong command of the issues, and is a strongly positive voice for the industry.
Bill Foster (IL-11): -4
He’s opposed to privacy and demands stronger traceability of crypto transactions. Privacy is one of the greatest benefits of cryptocurrency. He’s clearly an authoritarian nut job and it’s dangerous for him to be in any position of power. We need a primary challenger ASAP.
Tom Emmer (MN-6): +5
Of course, this hearing is Emmer’s time to shine, and he delivered as usual. What a chad. Called out the President’s Working Group for focusing risks and ignoring the substantial benefits. Emmer for president!
Joyce Beatty (OH-3): +2
Appeared thoughtful and admitted she had learned a lot, citing the space is a “new frontier” and not the “wild west” she had thought.
Barry Loudermilk (GA-11): +4
Ripped the PWG Report to shreds. Hindering innovation, ignoring state laws, focus on costs vs benefits. Great showing.
Juan Vargas (CA-51): -3
Cited the utility of remittances, so that’s a positive. But then mostly lambasted cryptocurrency. He quoted Trump’s hostility towards Bitcoin. Um… does he think the opinion of a septuagenarian blowhard gives his argument more credibility?
Alex Mooney (WV-2): +2
A jingoist take on stablecoins, and a heavily anti-China stance. It’s not necessarily the case that a xenophobic Sinosinitic stance is the right tone, but we’ll take what we can get.
Josh Gottheimer (NJ-5): -3
Some lip service towards bipartisanship and keeping innovators from fleeing overseas. But his idea of bipartisanship is excessive regulation, “protection”, and heavier AML requirements.
Warren Davidson (OH-8): +3
SEC focusing on Tether as a security is not what our community wants. But we like calling the committee the “Big Bank Protection” committee.
Al Lawson (FL-5): +3
Points out that Black and Latinos are driving adoption of cryptocurrency. Whites 11%, yet 23% blacks and 17% of Hispanics, and cites this as a positive trend. His thrust is that he wants to promote more “literacy” on the subject, which can be a good thing.
Ted Budd (NC-13): +4
Used his time to push for clarity on a number of topics, including regulatory jurisdictions and whether a CBDC could coexist with private stablecoins. In all the direction of questioning was helpful and from a point of view generally supportive of stablecoin progress. Sharp questions and helpful advocacy.
Ritchie Torres (NY-15) +4
Believes all stablecoins should hold cash as reserves. Prefers commonsense rules as opposed to banking regulation, which is a good stance. Cites the benefits of the tokenization of the dollar and its role in upholding the power of the dollar. Continues to display a strong understanding of the subject. We’re not as worried about Tether FUD as he is, but still, we continue to respect his leadership on the subject.
David Kustoff (TN-8): +2
Not quite sure why Representatives keep thumping about how stablecoins are “complicated” when they’re usually not that complicated. He does point out that it’s important not to be too heavy-handed when establishing regulation, which is important.
Stephen F. Lynch (MA-8): -3
Since his last disastrous appearance, he this time pivoted to talk about inflation and Facebook/Meta. He then harped on stablecoins potentially causing inflation, which is asinine. He thinks that a CBDC would damage the value of other stablecoins, so he still doesn’t appear to have a deep understanding of the subject.
Trey Hollingsworth (IN-9): +3
He blasted the report for saying that “only banks should issue stablecoins”, but seeing some give on less stringent stablecoin issuance. He recounts the good players in the space. He’s a forceful advocate for keeping bank regulations off of simple stablecoin issuers, which is an important stance to take.
Sean Casten (IL-6): -1
A bit torn on Casten. He does a lot of probing into the nuances of stablecoins, but it’s not clear where he’s going to land. He cites we need “all those consumer protections” which is not something we want and he’s worried about “creating an arbitrage with KYC/AML”.
Anthony Gonzalez (OH-15): +4
Appropriately cites privacy concerns about a CBDC, and probes on where should regulation be housed. Points out the harm in forcing banking regulations onto the space, and brings up why minority communities have been such early adopters vis-a-vis their distrust of banks. Good show.
Alma Adams (NC-12): +1
Worried about confusion about different agencies regulating different parts of the industry, which is a fair point. Will pull requests need to consider the effects that changing certain lines of code means a different boot will stomp you?
John Rose (TN-6): +4
If Congress banned stablecoins, they’d be developed in other countries and possibly pegged to other assets. He hammers home the point that stablecoins can reinforce dollar dominance, which is such a basic point that so many in Congress seem to ignore. He reviews the numbers to expose how ridiculous it is to suggest stablecoins are a systemic threat.
Sylvia Garcia (TX-29): +3
How many people are actually using this? Wants to avoid a system where banks again have the monopoly and keep the small fries out. Representing a heavily Latino district, she promotes greater access to this technology as opposed to restricting it.
Bryan Steil (WI-1): +4
Correctly worried about moving innovation offshore. Presses why state organizations were excluded from the PWG report. Key to not over-regulate. Where can we donate?
Madeleine Dean (PA-4): -3
Concerned about price volatility. Ugh, keep your FUD straight. A stablecoin doesn’t typically have price volatility. Maybe she was part of frog nation?
She worries about the fact that the demographic of investors into cryptocurrencies are diverse. Thank you, suburban white woman, for telling minority investors how they should spend their money.
William Timmons (SC-4): +2
Should this be in the banking system or not? Timmons leans against this, which is a good stance. He’s too focused on the benefits of regulation, which is not the ideal stance, but when regulation hits he appears to be directionally sympathetic.
Rashida Tlaib (MI-13): unscored
The worst human being in the world is back. Fortunately somebody thought to hack her Zoom feed so she couldn’t do too much harm. A good case of cancel culture.
Jake Auchincloss (MA-4): +5
Auchincloss continues to bring the blunt hammer of common sense to strike at the truth with his intelligent line of questioning.
He suggests dissecting the question in terms of three different domains of risks, the first (run risk) he argues could be mitigated with a simple registration process, not hefty regulation.
The second (payment risk), requires banking regulation according to the PWG report, but Auchincloss correctly asks why it’s needed when it’s primarily used within cryptocurrency and that this sort of registration was never required for sites like PayPal.
Finally the final risk (systemic risk) he suggests monitoring would be more appropriate than regulation given the size of the industry. Overall he remains concerned that regulation becomes a giveaway to banks. We’re lucky to have Auchincloss!