"Crypto doesn't get a free pass because it's shiny and bright, or because venture capitalists think it might change the world." – Sen. Brown
Brown urges that this hearing is not just about FTX, but will focus on the crypto industry and consumer protection.
Sen. Toomey (R-PA) says largely the opposite to Brown, and echoes the crypto industry's line that we must separate FTX's wrongdoing from all this promise that supposedly exists in the industry.
"There's nothing intrinsically good or evil about software, it's about what people do with it... Code committed no crime..." – Sen. Toomey
😮💨
Toomey says some Senators have suggested "pausing cryptocurrency" while hearings go on.
The crypto industry clearly has a strong spokesperson and salesman in Senator Toomey.
Sen. Brown introduces the witnesses. Prof. Hilary Allen and Ben McKenzie Schenkkan (better known as Ben McKenzie) will be critical of crypto; Kevin O'Leary and Jennifer Schulp are both pro-crypto.
First up is Prof. Hilary Allen. Her statement is challenging crypto's claims they are decentralized. She has suggested that "a ban on crypto would be the most straightforward".
She says that if legislators are not willing to proceed with a ban, then they must be very careful not to enact laws that would make crypto "too big to fail".
Now Kevin O'Leary is up. He was a paid spokesman of FTX. He's listing his crypto entanglements, and talking them up 🙄
O'Leary echoes Toomey in his statements that Bitcoin "isn't a coin, it's software".
This is a recently popular argument, which seems to seek to lean on "code as speech" precedence.
O'Leary explains how HE will be the one to do the detective work on what happened at FTX.
He characterizes skeptics as "entrenched businesses" who "abhor competition".
Now Jennifer J. Schulp, who's in camp "this is an FTX problem, not a crypto problem". She's talking up defi.
She characterizes various regulatory suggestions from the crypto-critical as "taking technological choices out of people's hands."
"Risk is a natural component of markets, and failure is often necessary for development."
Now Ben McKenzie, who says the crypto industry depends on "misinformation, hype, and, yes, fraud".
McKenzie is outlining how he does not believe that cryptocurrencies are currencies, and how he believes that every cryptocurrency is a security.
Sen. Brown asks if this kind of fraud exists at other crypto firms.
Allen: Yes
O'Leary: Yes, at unregulated exchanges
Schulp: Most likely
McKenzie: It's endemic.
McKenzie outlining the cross-pollination between execs at online gambling and fraud enterprise Ultimate Bets and the crypto industry: Stuart Hoegner at Tether and Dan Friedberg at FTX
O'Leary not great at yes or no questions. He claims the comparison to gambling are outdated and like early comparisons of the stock market to gambling.
Sen. Toomey pushing back on McKenzie's claim that all cryptocurrencies—including Bitcoin—would be securities.
Not surprised there.
He's having Schulp make that argument for him.
The argument, a common one, is that Bitcoin is too decentralized to be classed as a security.
O'Leary outlines the potential for blockchains, saying that 1/3 of the MIT class wants to work in the crypto industry.
Maybe not the best argument given that SBF was an MIT grad...
O'Leary is blaming FTX's collapse on Changpeng Zhao (CZ) of Binance.
Hilary Allen explains how "proof of reserves" and other crypto industry attestations don't replace proper auditing.
Allen also says that arguments that crypto needs to be regulated completely differently from existing systems because "it's decentralized" doesn't hold water, and explains how the Bitcoin software and mining pools are highly centralized.
Sen. Menendez (D-NJ) asks O'Leary if he might not have lost money if FTX had complied with existing regulations.
He says absolutely, but FTX wasn't regulated.
Compelling.
Sen. Menendez (D-NJ) is worried about the extent to which crypto might be integrated with traditional finance, adding contagion risk.
Mendendez asks McKenzie how we could combat the advertising.
McKenzie says we should use the right terminology, classify cryptos as securities, possibly treat crypto as gambling and restrict advertising, and require disclosures.
Sen. Tester (D-MT) opens with skepticism, asks Allen how her concerns expressed in front of the Senate last year have developed.
She expresses her gratefulness that banking regulators have largely siloed crypto, and limited FTX's explosion from affecting traditional finance.
But she expresses concerns over how crypto and traditional banking are increasingly intermingling, and she says we need to "firm up" the separation between the two.
Allen explains how the subprime mortgage crisis exposure was around $1.3T, and the reduction in the crypto industry "market cap" (which she also expresses skepticism about) was on that order, so if crypto and tradfi had not been segregated, its failure could've been catastrophic.
Sen. Tester asks if, had the two been closely coupled, the government might have had to bail out crypto like it had to bail out banks in 2008. Allen says yes.
O'Leary points to LedgerX as the "only entity that didn't go to zero" in the FTX collapse as proof that proper regulation could have protected FTX investors.
He conveniently ignores the other US-based entities involved the bankruptcy.
Sen. Hagerty (R-TN) is concerned about a "similar implosion by Binance", which he says would be catastrophic for the crypto industry and for consumers. Asks how US regulators could work with global regulators to bring transparency to Binance.
Sen. Hagerty outlines ties he believes exist between Binance and the CCP, seems very concerned about that. Schulp decides to sidestep discussing those ties.
Sen. Warner (D-VA) is up. He's also concerned Binance and possible ties to the CCP.
Talks about the "clunkiness" of Bitcoin, lack of scalability, environmental cost.
Molly White
Lazarou Monkey Terror 🚀💙🌈
Warner Crocker