Dec. 15, 2021: The Kangaroo Court 🦘🧑⚖️ 🇺🇸
Technophobic Senators Undermine America
Welp, that was a colossal embarrassment.
America’s elected leaders, presiding over the throes of imperial decay, are desperately and crudely hunting for any scapegoat but themselves. The primitive tribalists yesterday directed their prehensile fury against stablecoins. The mathematically sophisticated technology makes for a particularly soft target for a nation so badly lacking in STEM comprehension.
I hope the world got a good chuckle out of the technophobic theatrics. The real irony in watching the mob’s rudimentary reasoning, is that stablecoins are such an innocuous target. Anybody rational observer rooting for America’s interests would surely describe the current DeFi landscape as falling anywhere on the spectrum from purely anodyne to highly beneficial.
At any rate, bullish for the rest of the world. They’ll just keep building the future without us, occasionally welcoming exiles fleeing America’s neo-Luddite dystopia. If Uncle Sam turns too hostile, DeFi can move off dollarcoins practically overnight.
The more reactionary America’s response becomes, the more surely they’re simply undermining the dollar’s global influence within the rapidly evolving internet of money. What better vehicle than DeFi to extend US dollar dominance by a few years?
Honestly, America doesn’t deserve the massive lead we’ve been blessed with in this space. If we surrender this advantage, it may be the biggest self-pwn in history.
Only two bright spots amidst the two hour tirade. First was the level-headed reasoning of Chair Senator Toomey, a welcome contrast to the anger and fear-mongering on display among other panelists.
Second was the steady advocacy of Dante “Circle Chad” Disparte, who walked bravely into the ambush and walked out even stronger. Unfortunately for Mr. Disparte, not many people could stomach watching the catastrophe. However he’s clearly a rising star and a credit to our community.
Opposite Disparte’s chaddish turn, the Perjurooooorer perjured as expected.
Growing up we believed in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and that lying under oath would carry legal consequences. Glad we outgrew that naïveté!
Oh well, we’ll clean up our house soon enough. A number of organizations in the US are fighting back. For my sake, I’m heavily involved in PAC DAO (the beneficiary of any paid newsletter subscribers). PAC DAO is hard at work building our on-chain Congressional scorecard which may have a role in distributing funds. Like last week’s House hearing, this event is a convenient way to seed initial scores for our representatives based on public comments. Here are the scores I’ll be proposing to the DAO governance token holders for vote.
Sherrod Brown: -5
His opening remarks set the tone for the kangaroo court. In his fiery opening address, he read off the bankers’ laundry list of complaints about stablecoins. When you try to dissect the verbal diarrhea, though, it didn’t really stand up to scrutiny. Sometimes you couldn’t really tell whether he was attacking stablecoins or Bitcoin.
“The supposed value of these digital assets in circulation recently passed 3 trillion dollars. <advertisement for JP Morgan> With that much money tied up that’s pretty much the definition of a systemic issue in our economy.”
You call it the “supposed” value of digital assets — are you angry because you believe their value is not what is claimed? I’m confused then, if this is the case, shouldn’t it be a good thing because it puts the economy at less risk?
And how, praytell, is this the “definition of systemic issues in our economy?” Wikipedia has a markedly different definition:
A systemic problem is a problem which is a consequence of issues inherent in the overall system, rather than due to a specific, individual, isolated factorIf you subscribe to the outmoded idea that words have meanings, isn’t it precisely the opposite?
Anybody familiar with cryptocurrency bashing through the ages is familiar with these debate tactics. Anti-coiners seldom have any logical coherency or intellectual footing to their arguments, it’s just a firehose of random FUD. It they had one good attack vector, they’d stick to it. Instead we see the machine gun style spray and pray, hoping the opponents exhaust themselves chasing down the inconsistencies.
Continuing down his laundry list
“We’ve been told that blockchain…will democratize money or build a more inclusive economy. But none of these promises has materialized.”
The odd “stablecoins are racist” argument came up a few times among the panel of wealthy, alabaster-toned fossils. Anyway, I’ll just drop this here
Brown’s only consistent line of assault was to refer to cryptocurrency investment perjoratively as “gambling.”
Of course, when Senators do the same with stocks, nobody calls it “gambling.” It goes under the more pleasant euphemism “insider trading.”
When it came his turn to question, he quickly forgot what he was supposed to be angry about. He seemed most concerned about grilling Circle Chad about copyright complaints about the term “USDC.” Wouldn’t namesquatting be a trivial issue to resolve?
Briefly sensing he’s on the wrong side of this debate here, he also let the angry facade slip long enough to compliment Circle Chad’s performance, marking the only worthwhile part of his testimony.
Get to work Ohio, he’s up for re-election in 2024. We’ve got about two years to find a primary and/or general election challenger.
Pat Toomey (PA): +5
Having never heard the man speak before, my only impression of Senator Toomey was that he looked less lifelike than a discount wax museum sculpture. I came away from the hearing very impressed. Even-tempered and thoughtful testimony. He clearly had a studied understanding of the nuances in the space. Definitely demonstrated the credibility to take leadership on the subject of cryptocurrency. Would recommend!
Jack Reed (RI): -1
Need help from people plugged in to pop culture — is his schtick more Jimmy Stewart or Alan Alda?
Anyway, he looked like he was enjoying a nap when his turn came up. Rudely awakened and clearly not interested in the subject, he groggily read off the first question the anti-coiner witness literally asked him to read.
Just as well, given the quality of his other questions:
“There are… data gaps in the cryptocurrency markets?”
Yesser, the knock against blockchains is their lack of data integrity 🤦
Ever eager to please her masters, Perjurooor jumped at this, citing how you can get so much better data from stock markets. She’s not dumb… she clearly understands who pays her bills 🤦🤦🤦
Mike Rounds (SD): +3
Spent his time diving into the discrepancy between the Perjurooor and the Chad about stablecoin fees. We’ll take what we can get!
Steve Daines (MT): +3
“We should pursue a lighter touch approach.” Great idea!
He then let Circle Chad talk for a long time. We’ll call that a win for this hearing.
Jon Tester (MT): -2
The befuddled Senator appeared to believe stablecoins had some relation to the 2008 crash and wants a customer support number? He also asked the Perjurooor for advice instead of placing her under arrest, so minus points.
At the end though, he seemed more confused than “paid off,” so we’re marking him at just a -2 in the hopes that his fellow Montana Senator can persuade him.
Mark Warner (VA): -5
His jumbled opening statement was revealing.
“I’m very concerned…that there’s a lot of innovation going on…”
That little Freudian slip honestly sums up a the subtext of the entire hearing. The entire proceeding is an exercise in preying on people’s fear of innovation.
Anyway, he regained a toehold long enough to get to the whole “illegal and illicit purposes” talking point quickly enough.
He rambled about how some government computers got hacked a few days ago. They probably used “password” as their password or something. Whatever happened, it’s a good thing they can so quickly pivot to demanding citizens to trust them with yet more sensitive data
He brings up this unrelated story because apparently his concern is that the hackers might ask for a ransom.
“My fear is that it will be paid off in Bitcoin, and potentially using stablecoins to transfer that to fiat currency.”
That’s such a weird and oddly specific phobia. Like, I know people who are afraid of clowns, but never met anybody genuinely afraid of payment routing logistics. It’s great that he felt comfortable sharing his bizarre weakness in public, but hopefully Virginia can elect somebody more stalwart and less fearful in five years when his turn’s up.
When he got to his line of questioning, he shifted to a mix of outrage and confusion about Circle’s business model. In an extremely worrisome exchange, he lamented how he wished Circle had a business model more like Facebook. 🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩
He asked himself several questions while attempting to wrap his feeble brain around Circle’s business model. Then, instead of just asking the witness from Circle there to testify, he asked the Perjurooooor to explain Circle’s business model. Even she appeared to think this was the wrong person to ask.
Elizabeth Warren (MA): -5
Elizabeth Warren opens her mouth and whoa do markets react…
No need for me to comment on what the internet already nailed.
A few people noted Warren’s heel-face-turn.
In terms of power dynamics, her strategy is strictly by the book. Her longtime anti-banking stance was clearly a LARP to let her establish her beloved CFPB. Now that she’s carved out some amout authority over the banking system, her next step is to shoehorn everything possible under this jurisdiction.
Tina Smith: -4
Complains it’s “Extremely difficult for anybody to understand.” Great work Minnesota, you elected an ignoramus. Then she goes off about pensions? A danger to America.
Kirsten Sinema: -2
Mostly hit the party line talking points, asking how we can have confidence stablecoins are backed. Geesh, people, it’s really not that complicated, you all are are just being willfully obstinate.
Would have been a -4, but she gains a point for blowing off the hearing, forcing the co-chairs to stall for about 20 minutes. Toomey used the time to ask thoughtful questions. Brown ranted more about “gambling.”
Sinema eventually showed up and didn’t even bother turning on her Zoom video, earning her another point. Utter disdain for the entire farce is the only correct mood.
That’s a wrap! One might think, “who cares?” DeFi gonna DeFi regardless of what they say.
Unfortunately, it was a prime example of exactly how the sausage gets made in DC. Now that they have plenty of garbage “evidence” admitted as sworn testimony, they can circulate this to agencies around the Potomac. Other committees will cite the testimony of the Senate Banking committee on the record, which can in turn get cited, et al.
In the end we’ll see harsh enforcement meted out under the explanation of “28 agencies unanimously expressed concern.” Even though it’s all circular references to Perjurooor, in some cases citing herself. Well played, villains!
Disclaimers! If you want to help, join PAC DAO and/or subscribe to the newsletter.