1. Home
  2. congress

congress

Coinbase establishes advisory council with former US lawmakers

Former Senator Patrick Toomey, former Representative Tim Ryan, former Representative Sean Patrick Maloney, and others will advise Coinbase on crypto policies.

Following some of its leadership team visiting the United Arab Emirates, crypto exchange Coinbase has announced the formation of an advisory council staffed with many former United States lawmakers and industry leaders

In a May 12 blog post, Coinbase said its Global Advisory Council would aim to navigate the “increasingly complex and evolving” crypto landscape globally. Former Pennsylvania Senator Patrick Toomey, former Ohio Representative Tim Ryan, former New York Representative Sean Patrick Maloney, and other industry insiders will sit on the council and advise the company on crypto policies.

According to Coinbase, the council currently consists of only five members, with plans to expand “with a bipartisan group of leaders with deep regulatory expertise.” Former Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) chair Jay Clayton sits on a different board for the exchange, advising the firm on regulatory policy.

Related: ‘US has left a vacuum that other countries are eager to fill’: Coinbase

The announcement followed speculation by many that the U.S.-based crypto exchange could be considering moving its operations outside the country amid the lack of regulatory clarity. The exchange is currently in a legal battle with the SEC after receiving a Wells notice in March, prompting Coinbase to file a motion in an attempt to force the commission to clarify its position on digital assets.

“We chose to build in America because we want to be part of the solution and believe America would be best served by embracing the potential of crypto and blockchain technology,” said the May 12 blog post.

Coinbase launched its own global derivatives platform in May, opening its services to users in more than 30 jurisdictions around the world. CEO Brian Armstrong and other executives also visited the United Arab Emirates in May to test the potential of the region as a “strategic hub” for its international operations.

Magazine: Samsung’s Bitcoin ETF, $700M bust, Coinbase exits Japan: Asia Express

Bitcoin Price Watch: BTC’s Next Move Hinges on $83.5K Support Amid Low Demand

GAO cites exposure to digital assets in exploring collapse of Signature Bank

Michael Clements said the GAO had reviewed “large deposits from the digital asset space” in considering whether crypto had contributed to Signature’s failure.

The United States Government Accountability Office, or GAO, has released its preliminary review of the failures of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank — and included exposure to deposits from the cryptocurrency industry.

In a report released on May 11, the GAO said “poor governance and unsatisfactory risk-management practices” led to the collapse of Signature Bank in March. The GAO did not explicitly report that digital assets were the cause of the bank’s failure but mentioned exposure to the crypto industry alongside potential reasons.

“Signature Bank had exposure to the digital assets industry and declining liquidity in the months prior to failure,” said the report. “FDIC staff said Signature Bank management was unable to fully understand the bank’s liquidity positions in the days and hours before failure.”

Though the GAO largely did not mention the crypto-friendly Silvergate Bank, which went into voluntary liquidation in March, the report said Signature was “perceived to be similar.” Signature held roughly $12 billion in deposits connected to digital asset firms in 2022 but intended to reduce its exposure to the crypto industry.

U.S. lawmakers discussed oversight of the failed banks in a May 11 hearing, in which GAO director of financial markets and community investment Michael Clements said bank regulators had identified concerns with Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank before their collapse but “did not escalate supervisory actions in time.” In response to questioning from Tennessee Representative John Rose, Clements said the GAO had reviewed “large deposits from the digital asset space” in considering whether crypto had contributed to Signature’s failure.

“[Signature] was simply holding deposits and operating the accounts,” said Clements. “Following some of the turmoil in 2022, particularly FTX, some of those deposits did start to fall off.”

Different regulators have put forth their own views on the potential connection between exposure to crypto and the collapse of these banks. Adrienne Harris, superintendent of the New York Department of Financial Services, reportedly said any connection between Signature’s failure and crypto was “ludicrous,” describing the events as more of a traditional bank run.

Related: More than 186 US banks well-positioned for collapse, SVB analysis reveals

Many regulators and lawmakers continue to invoke the collapses of Signature Bank, Silicon Valley Bank and Silvergate Bank in discussions around crypto. Following the bank failures, crypto firms including BlockFi and Gemini released statements claiming to have had sufficient funds to offset exposure or no exposure at all.

Magazine: Unstablecoins: Depegging, bank runs and other risks loom

Bitcoin Price Watch: BTC’s Next Move Hinges on $83.5K Support Amid Low Demand

Former US Secretary of Labor Robert Reich Urges Bypassing Congress to Raise Debt Ceiling

Former US Secretary of Labor Robert Reich Urges Bypassing Congress to Raise Debt CeilingRobert Reich, former secretary of labor in the U.S., has called for the government to bypass Congress in order to raise the debt ceiling unilaterally. Reich states that the constitution of the U.S. gives President Biden the faculty of ignoring this debt limit, declaring it unconstitutional — explaining its existence is less significant than the […]

Bitcoin Price Watch: BTC’s Next Move Hinges on $83.5K Support Amid Low Demand

US lawmakers introduce bipartisan bill proposing ban on members investing in ‘financial instruments’

Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Matt Gaetz — lawmakers diametrically opposed on a variety of issues — joined forces to stop congressional members from trading stocks.

Lawmakers from both sides of the aisle in the United States House of Representatives have backed a bill prohibiting members of Congress and their spouses and dependents from trading or owning certain financial instruments — which could extend to investments in digital assets.

In a May 2 announcement, Democratic Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) and Raja Krishnamoorthi, as well as Republican Representatives Brian Fitzpatrick and Matt Gaetz, introduced the Bipartisan Restoring Faith in Government Act. An April 28 draft of the bill proposed amending U.S. laws applying to congressional members to prohibit ownership of securities, securities futures, and commodities, as well as limiting owning or trading certain assets.

Under the bill, congressional members who are invested in such assets would largely be required to sell them or place them in a blind trust within 90 days of passage. Failure to comply with the law could result in civil charges from the U.S. Attorney General potentially leading to fines of up to $50,000.

“The ability to individually trade stock erodes the public’s trust in government,” said AOC. “When Members have access to classified information, we should not be trading in the stock market on it. It’s really that simple.”

Though the four members of Congress pointed to stock trading as one of the reasons for the bill, the text suggested ownership of certain cryptocurrencies could also be included in the ban. Members of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and Commodity Futures Trading Commission have said Bitcoin (BTC) qualifies as a commodity, while some are still unclear regarding the asset status of Ether (ETH).

In 2021, AOC said she personally avoided investments that could potentially represent a conflict of interest — a policy she applied to stocks and crypto. Under the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act, or STOCK Act, U.S. lawmakers are largely required to report investments but still allowed to oversee or propose legislation on matters potentially related to companies for which they own stock.

Many experts have suggested that the penalties for lawmakers who fail to disclose investments under the current rules were an insufficient deterrent for potential conflicts of interest. Representative Lois Frankel reportedly sold her stock in the troubled First Republic Bank and purchased some for JPMorgan prior to the sale, suggesting insider knowledge used for profit.

Related: US congressmen chide presidential advisers over crypto stances in economic report

Policymakers have previously suggested ways to expand the scope of the STOCK Act to outright prohibit certain investments, without success. Many in the U.S. public have suggested the practice of allowing members to own stock or accept financial contributions on behalf of companies was ethically dubious. For example, some executives at defunct crypto exchange FTX, including former CEO Sam Bankman-Fried, donated to campaigns for both Republican and Democratic lawmakers.

It’s unclear whether the bipartisan bill will have enough votes to move through both the House and Senate before arriving on President Joe Biden’s desk to be signed into law.

Magazine: Powers On… Why US officials ignore ethics and STOCK Act by trading stocks?

Bitcoin Price Watch: BTC’s Next Move Hinges on $83.5K Support Amid Low Demand

Ron DeSantis Vows to Prohibit CBDC, ‘Woke Politics,’ and ‘Financial Surveillance’ in Florida

Ron DeSantis Vows to Prohibit CBDC, ‘Woke Politics,’ and ‘Financial Surveillance’ in FloridaFlorida governor Ron DeSantis reiterated his call for a ban on central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) during a visit to Jacksonville on Tuesday. Last March, DeSantis pushed for legislation to prohibit a CBDC in Florida. At Tuesday’s event called “Government of Laws, Not Woke Politics,” he stated that if the U.S. Federal Reserve or Treasury […]

Bitcoin Price Watch: BTC’s Next Move Hinges on $83.5K Support Amid Low Demand

US congressmen chide presidential advisers over crypto stances in economic report

The legislators objected to a chapter of the president’s annual report that they believe diminished the role of Congress and could damage the economy with its hostility to digital assets.

United States Congressmen Warren Davidson and Mike Flood have written a letter to the chair of the Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) demanding an explanation for a chapter the agency prepared for the "Economic Report of the President" that expressed “a hostile view towards the digital asset ecosystem.” 

The report, presented to Congress in March, contained a chapter titled “The Reality of Crypto Assets” that claimed such assets “have brought none of the promised benefits.” The agency’s opinion marked a reversal of the position taken in the president’s “Executive Order on Ensuring Responsible Development of Digital Assets,” the lawmakers claimed. They wrote:

“We are working to do our part in Congress to put forth a regulatory regime for digital assets that will allow this innovative ecosystem to thrive in the U.S. while enacting critical protections.”

“By taking such a hostile view towards the digital asset ecosystem, the Administration is only pushing digital asset innovation offshore,” they wrote. This posture, they added, will start “drawing capital and economic growth away from the U.S. to the benefit of other countries.”

The letter raised questions, many of which immediately sprang to the minds of crypto supporters who objected to the claims made in the report. The writers asked how firms can comply with the law “when the laws that allegedly apply are conflicting, for example when a product is considered both a security and a commodity.”

Related: ‘Keep Your Coins’ bill introduced to restrict government control of crypto

They further asked why the agency dismissed the role of Congress by saying much of the activity in the crypto space is covered by existing regulations. They wrote, “Is it the CEA's view that legislation from Congress will not mitigate potential risks and provide consumers with more protections than exist today?”

Finally, the lawmakers demanded to know why the agency, which is part of the Executive Office of the President, claimed that the soon-to-launch FedNow instant payment system and central bank digital currency would be simpler and more effective than digital assets in upgrading the financial system.

The letter did not explain what purpose the requested information would serve. The authors set a May 26 deadline for the answers.

Davidson is a longtime crypto advocate who in April introduced legislation to remove Gary Gensler from the chairmanship of the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Flood introduced a bill as a Nebraska state legislator in 2021 that would allow financial institutions in the state to operate digital asset depository businesses. That bill was signed into law. On the federal level, Flood supported Rep. Tom Emmer’s “CBDC Anti-Surveillance State Act” when it was unveiled in February.

Magazine: US enforcement agencies are turning up the heat on crypto-related crime

Bitcoin Price Watch: BTC’s Next Move Hinges on $83.5K Support Amid Low Demand

What the Gensler hearing means for US crypto regulation and policy

Gensler was reluctant to go into details and faced symbolical pressure rather than genuine attempts to interrogate, leaving the crypto industry without any new clarity.

Gary Gensler, the United States Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) chair, recently appeared before the U.S. House of Representatives Financial Services Committee for a hearing regarding his leadership of the regulatory agency. 

The hearing, with Gensler as the only witness, promised to be unpleasant for the SEC chair, with the federal agency’s actions during Gensler’s leadership since spring 2021 coming under scrutiny.

From the introduction by the committee chair, Representative Patrick McHenry, Gensler was under fire for the SEC’s perceived overreach and approach of regulation through enforcement.

McHenry stressed that the absence of a clear position on the legal classification of cryptocurrencies doesn’t make it easier for companies to comply with the SEC’s demands.

A day before the hearing, Representative Warren Davidson announced a measure to fire the SEC boss and cut the power of his successors “to correct a long series of abuses” against the crypto industry.

As threatening as it may sound, this was not the first and will likely not be the last attack on Gensler. The SEC chair has made himself several enemies during his two years in the top job — and not just in the crypto industry.

But hyperbole and congressional saber-rattling aside, was the April 18 hearing that bad for the SEC chair, and could it soften his position on crypto?

Grilling and cheering

The fiery opening statement by McHenry was inspired by the SEC’s impressive record of 50 separate enforcement actions against digital asset firms and the agency’s request for an additional $78 million of funds to expand its activity.

McHenry blamed Gensler for the “nonsensical” punishment of crypto companies, which failed to comply with the laws they didn’t know even applied to them, with “not sufficient, nor sustainable” regulation by enforcement and “overly aggressive” rulemaking.

Magazine: Whatever happened to EOS? Community shoots for unlikely comeback

In his prepared testimony, Gensler debunked the reprimands about rushed rulemaking, citing the standard procedures (the length of comment periods for the SEC propositions currently averages more than 70 days) and the necessity to meet the urgent challenges of the time, digitalization being chief among them.

Speaking of crypto, Gensler once again reinstated his position that “most crypto tokens are securities” and should be regulated by the SEC. In his opinion, the market is “rife with incompliance” and, in the name of investors’ protection, should be regulated in line with the standards applied to traditional finance:

“It’s the law; it’s not a choice. Calling yourself a DeFi [decentralized finance] platform, for instance, is not an excuse to defy the securities laws.”

Representative Tom Emmer asked whether Gensler was concerned that such an approach could result in crypto businesses fleeing the U.S. but did not give the SEC chief time to answer.

Representative Barry Loudermilk was a bit more constructive. He asked Gensler whether he believed a government agency’s centralized access to private investors’ information is more secure than the decentralized crypto market. In response, Gensler defended the necessity of the consolidated audit trail to “help surveil the market.”

All those who emphasized the word “grilling” were probably disappointed by the support Gensler received during the hearing. At the beginning of the meeting, he got words of appreciation from Representatives Maxine Waters and Bred Sherman, who welcomed the SEC’s fight against “crypto bro billionaires.” Representative Stephen Lynch humorously asked to specify whether the amount of written guidance by the commission is not the sort of clarity the crypto industry wants.

It was New York Democrat Representative Ritchie Torres who stated that instead of paying more attention to the likes of “offshore, underregulated, overleveraged” companies like FTX or Binance, the SEC targeted an onshore and regulated exchange like Coinbase.

Torres also mentioned the SEC’s interest in stablecoin issuers Paxos but not in Tether. Gensler responded that conducting a proper investigation in cases with overseas companies simply takes longer.

Representative Davidson, whose intent to fire Gensler by legislation was already made public before the hearing, cornered the SEC chair with a request to clarify whether he considers Ether (ETH) and XRP (XRP) securities. Though, it should be noted that Davidson didn’t give Gensler much time to provide a clear response, proceeding to read a long list of the SEC’s supposed failures.

Representative Mike Flood pressed Gensler to comment on the SEC issuing the staff accounting bulletin 121 (SAB 121) without consulting any banking regulators beforehand. Issued in March 2022, SAB 121 required crypto platforms to list digital assets as liabilities on their balance sheets at fair value. Reluctant at first, Gensler admitted the agency did not consult banking regulators but noted that the SEC consulted instead with the Big Four accounting firms.

Last but not least was the participation of Representative Erin Houchin, who cited the European Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) Act as an example of a comprehensive framework for the digital industry, which, in her opinion, the U.S. lacks. In response, Gensler assured her the country enjoys a clear regulatory framework built over 90 years.

Takeaways 

The hearing was not dedicated exclusively to the SEC’s crypto strategies. In fact, despite the topic’s strong presence in the opening speech, the regulator’s climate disclosure rule for publicly traded companies drew the most attention from lawmakers.

The crypto industry didn’t get much news from Gensler, who, on the one hand, was quite reluctant to go into details, and, on the other, faced more symbolic pressure rather than genuine attempts to interrogate.

“It is highly unlikely that any of the questions presented or arguments raised did much, if anything, to sway the SEC’s current regulatory approach to the crypto-asset industry,” Jackson Mueller, director of policy and government relations at Securrency, told Cointelegraph.

“The SEC and Gensler did not confirm whether ETH is a commodity or a security,” CoinRoutes chief technology officer and co-founder Ian Weisberger told Cointelegraph. However, what should be noted in his opinion is Gensler’s assurance that existing legislation is enough to regulate crypto:

“The SEC’s stance is that crypto companies should register under existing securities laws that were written in the 1930s. These laws are tailored toward centralized companies and have disclosure requirements that do not work for the unique structure of crypto networks.”

Another important takeaway was the partisan division on crypto. All but one representative who questioned Gensler on digital assets was a Republican. This is, perhaps, unsurprising, given Republican opposition to the Biden Administration appointee; however, it still illustrates how crypto legislation is not immune to partisan political divisions.

Recent: Liechtenstein adapts blockchain laws to developing crypto landscape

The contours of this division get even more striking if one looks at those who champion crypto advocacy, be it Republican Senator Cynthia Lummis at the federal level or State Senator Wendy Rogers of Arizona. The same goes for the critics, with Democrat Senators Elizabeth Warren and Sherrod Brown being the most notable.

Is there a chance that the SEC could soften its stance under the current chair? CoinRoute’s Weisberger believes the agency has good-faith regulators like Hester Peirce. Peirce, also known as “Crypto Mom,” has repeatedly raised concerns about the rules regarding trading platforms that do not handle tokens qualifying as securities or how to address operators that move from securities to non-securities trading. In Weisberger’s opinion, the best hope still lies with Congress passing some kind of legislative framework above the level of the SEC.

Bitcoin Price Watch: BTC’s Next Move Hinges on $83.5K Support Amid Low Demand

US House committees hear similar testimonies in simultaneous hearings on digital assets

A range of speakers addressed issues of agency turf wars and regulator fitness in hearings on regulatory gaps.

The United States House of Representatives was abuzz with talk about crypto on April 27, as both the Financial Services Committee and the Agriculture Committee held hearings with nearly identical titles and covered nearly the same ground with many similar conclusions.

The Financial Services Committee in its hearing “The Future of Digital Assets: Identifying the Regulatory Gaps in Digital Asset Market Structure” heard from Davis Polk partner Zachary Zweihorn, who argued that “securities market structure laws and regulations do not align with digital asset securities.” He said:

“We’ve all heard the siren’s call to ‘come in and register.’ It sounds enticingly attractive. But this is an oversimplification that conflates registration, which may theoretically be possible, with compliance, which is not.”

American University law professor Hilary Allen, a noted opponent of cryptocurrency, disagreed with Zweihorn. “This is a misdirection,” she said of the industry’s claim of incompatibility with current regulations. “It is entirely possible for a blockchain-based technology business to comply with existing investor protection and financial stability regulation.”

Gattaca Horizons founder and CEO Daniel Gorfine was a voice of moderation in the discussion. He said:

“Some of the problems we have observed in the crypto space over the past year are a result of too much focus on novel digital assets rather than real-world applications that yield productive gains and improve lives.”

Similar sentiment was echoed in the Agriculture Committee’s hearing “The Future of Digital Assets: Identifying the Regulatory Gaps in Spot Market Regulation.”

Katten Muchin Rosenman partner Daniel Davis said much of the spot market in digital assets is outside the jurisdiction of both the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). Digital assets that are not securities or a leveraged retail commodities product, for example, are not regulated, although the CFTC has “backward looking authority” to prosecute fraud.

Of the top 15 digital assets traded, two have been identified by the SEC as securities, and seven have been identified by the CFTC as commodities, leaving considerable confusion even in the most actively traded assets.

Related: US House Financial Committee Republicans look for records to show crypto debanking

Several witnesses gave examples of the shortcomings of the current SEC regulatory framework when it is applied to crypto. FalconX Holdings deputy general counsel Purvi Maniar said mandatory SEC disclosures would make peer-to-peer transactions impossible.

Regulatory gaps made such market issues as the FTX collapse possible, former CFTC chair Timothy Massad said. He suggested the SEC and CFTC jointly write a set of principles for all traders that use Bitcoin (BTC) or Ether (ETH) but are not currently regulated. He referred the audience to the op-ed he and former SEC chair Jay Clayton wrote for The Wall Street Journal in December.

Securities digital assets get “regulated out of existence or at least out of the United States,” Davis Polk & Wardwell partner Joseph Hall said. He also held that digital assets are “different in kind from what preceded them” and not well regulated within the current SEC framework. He said:

“I believe competition between our regulators is a feature, not a bug, of our system. So I believe it is time to move on beyond the tired debate.”

The two committee will hold a joint hearing next month.

Magazine: Crypto regulation: Does SEC Chair Gary Gensler have the final say?

Bitcoin Price Watch: BTC’s Next Move Hinges on $83.5K Support Amid Low Demand

US House Financial Committee Republicans look for records to show crypto debanking

The lawmakers see a “coordinated strategy” to deny the digital asset industry access to banking that is not related to a desire to protect banks.

Three Republican members of the United States House of Representatives Financial Services Committee have sent letters to the heads of U.S. banking regulatory agencies seeking information on possible coordinated efforts taken against digital asset firms. The letters follow up on ones sent to the same addresses by the lawmakers earlier.

The letters, dated April 25, were addressed to Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) chair Martin J. Gruenberg, Federal Reserve System chair Jerome Powell, and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) acting comptroller Michael J. Hsu. The letters contained identical text with an individualized set of demands to see the agencies’ records.

The letters began by recalling the Obama Administration’s purported Operation Choke Point that encouraged banks to deny service to certain types of business. They continued:

“Today, we are seeing the resurgence of coordinated action by the federal prudential regulators to suppress innovation in the United States. There is no clearer example than in the digital asset ecosystem.”

The letters’ authors provided the examples of OCC Interpretive Letter 1179, the FDIC’s letter of April 2022 and the joint statement of the three agencies released in January. Despite the “run-of-the-mill fraud” seen in the crypto industry, “Digital asset activity is not inherently risky," they say. Furthermore:

“Taken together, the actions of the Fed, FDIC, and OCC do not appear to be in reaction to recent events or the result of a sudden desire to protect financial institutions from risky behavior, but instead suggest a coordinated strategy to de-bank the digital asset ecosystem in the United States.”

The authors, Reps. Patrick McHenry, Bill Huizenga, and French Hill demand non-public records relating to communications between employees of each of the agencies addressed and the institutions they supervise in regard to the documents referenced.

Magazine: Crypto regulation: Does SEC Chair Gary Gensler have the final say?

Bitcoin Price Watch: BTC’s Next Move Hinges on $83.5K Support Amid Low Demand

Lack of stablecoin regulation could push issuers out of US: Austin Campbell

Lawmakers didn't reach a consensus between political parties on a stablecoin bill, as one witness warned this lack of regulatory clarify could drive certain projects abroad.

United States lawmakers discussed the role of stablecoins in a committee hearing, but some experts expressed concern about the country’s regulatory environment.

In an April 19 hearing of the U.S. Subcommittee on Digital Assets, Financial Technology and Inclusion, Austin Campbell, an adjunct assistant professor at the Columbia Business School, said areas including Singapore, Dubai, Abu Dhabi, and the United Kingdom have already proposed frameworks for stablecoins that could offer a competitive regulatory environment for issuers looking for a home.

“If you look around the world, you’re starting to see legislation that deals specifically with fiat-backed stablecoins,” said Campbell. “I think we can do better in America. Our financial regulation and systems are more robust [...] If we don’t act, those are the best options and people will take advantage of them.”

In Campbell’s written testimony, he added:

“When I am asked to consult or advise for projects attempting to build stablecoins or use stablecoins, my first advice has now become to avoid US operations and a US domicile. The jobs are going elsewhere.”

Some lawmakers on the committee echoed similar concerns about legislation proposed to handle stablecoins in the United States. House Financial Services Committee chair Patrick McHenry released a discussion draft bill on how Congress could address stablecoins used for payments and a central bank digital currency.

However, ranking member Maxine Waters said “A lot of things have happened” affecting how the legislation could be drafted, saying the published draft was not representative of a compromise between the Democratic and Republican party members. Arkansas Representative French Hill, who chairs the digital assets subcommittee, referred to the previous compromise bill as an “ugly baby.”

“In addition to FTX and a lot of other things going on, this bill that we have posted in no way represents any final work because so much has happened in between,” said Waters. “We need to get back together in negotiations.”

Related: Speakers prepare to tell US House Financial Services Committee about stablecoins

Major stablecoins including Tether (USDT) and USD Coin (USDC) have previously temporarily de-pegged from the dollar in response to various market forces, including perceived contagion from the collapse of FTX and Alameda Research as well as Silicon Valley Bank. Drafts of bills proposed by some U.S. lawmakers have also suggested banning algorithmic stablecoins such as TerraUSD Classic (USTC), which lost its peg from the U.S. dollar in May 2022.

Magazine: Unstablecoins: Depegging, bank runs and other risks loom

Bitcoin Price Watch: BTC’s Next Move Hinges on $83.5K Support Amid Low Demand