December 9: House Committee on Financial Services 🐎🐘
Scoring Representatives by Their Questions
I watched the US House Committee on Financial Services so you don’t have to.
Overall, the meeting was not as awful as one might fear. Several Members of Congress fell on the spectrum anywhere from crypto-curious to raging bullish. Only a few utterly beclowned themselves. Compared with a few years ago, way fewer ignorant comments.
The panelists were all spectacular. Major points to Jeremy Allaire, SBF, Brian Brooks, Charles Cascarilla, Denielle Dixon, and Alesia Jeanne Haas for doing a bang-up job patiently and intelligently representing crypto.
Below I took notes on all Members of Congress and their statements. I also scored them on a range of -5 to 5 based on the aptitude and tone of their questioning. I’ll be submitting these scores to holders of the PAC DAO governance token and recommending a vote on officially writing these scores to the blockchain.
As dedicated readers know, PAC DAO Crypto Activism is preparing the launch of our on-chain Congressional scorecard, which will be used for, among other things, allocating funding to sitting Members of Congress or, where applicable, their opponents at the end of the session. Please join the community if you are interested in helping us build or learning more!
Here they are in order they appeared.
Patrick McHenry (NC-10): +5
“2021 was the year of the cryptocurrency. More Americans than ever are taking notice of this transformational technology. DeFi, DAOs, NFTs, Web3: jargon that was really once used on CT, are now becoming part of lexicon.”
👏👏👏😥
Carolyn Maloney (NY-12): -3
Overly focused on customer protections. NGMI
Ann Wagner (MO-2): -1
+2 for grasping the important role of cryptocurrency in providing financial inclusion, but -3 for mentioning Gary Gensler without hissing audibly.
Al Green (TX-9): -1
Worried about volatility and bubbles. Also cited “lack of transparency” which is a confusing question about public blockchains.
Pete Sessions (TX-17): +2
Not sure where he was going with the fraud question, but bonus points for nailing the tone:
“We need to be supportive. We need to look at you as less of something we should tackle or hold back, and more to what we believe the future should look like for people of the world, people of the United States. I encourage your integrity.”
Gregory Meeks (NY-5): +3
Plus points for recognizing the value of remittance, minus points for too much focus on the stale boogeymen of “bad actors”. Bonus points for thanking Allaire publicly for the 🤌, which serves as a bullish reinforcement PAC DAO’s thesis that the wealth of our community will ultimately sway all of Congress in the end.
Blaine Luetkemeyer (MO-3): +1
Too bullish on USD. NGMI next cycle if you’re overexposed to stables.
Most of questions were dead enders, but cool to have a representative asking about quantum computing. What a year!
Andy Barr (KY-6): +1
Some decent curiosity about appropriate regulation and stablecoins. “More digital clarity” can cut both ways though, wait and see.
Juan Vargas (CA-51): -3
“I’ve heard a lot of high, noble motives. Free market data… transparent… reduces risk… less friction. These things are all great. It’s interesting that most of the people I that know that have invested in cryptocurrency are not because of that, but because they think they can get rich quick.”
Let me get this straight. His problem with cryptocurrency is that he has idiotic friends? Duly noted.
Roger Williams (TX-25): +2
Spent his entire time waxing nostalgic about baseball, then asked about reducing burdens. Baseball is boring, but would prefer to have our representatives focused on baseball rather than writing more laws. Maybe we host a meetup for the next Astros-Rangers game?
Sean Casten (IL-6): +1
Acknowledged the scope of crypto and seemed genuinely interested in learning more about stablecoins. A bit too giddy about shoehorning crypto into existing regulatory structures, though.
Warren Davidson (OH-8): +2
“I feel like I’m talking to Steve Case in 1990"
Lip service to crypto people goes a long way, plus a good focus on too much licensure. But, of tech people, the first person to come to mind is Steve Case?
Ritchie Torres (NY-15): +1
“Is there a computer network that is more secure than blockchain?”
Seems to be grasping the importance of remittances and value of stablecoins towards reinforcing the USD.
Bill Huizenga (MI-2): +3
Not overregulating, focus on allowing others to be innovative, allowing innovation against the entrenchment of the panelists. Everything you want to hear.
Al Lawson (FL-5): 0
Asked smart questions and played this true neutral on the subject. Good that we got some Congressional record on non-broker reporting subjects.
French Hill (AR-2): +2
Seems to be marginally concerned about regulation of wallets and in favor of cutting regulations.
Bill Foster (IL-11): -4
Wants the capability to de-anonymize any cryptoasset, then to overregulate and tax everything. Plus one point for at least understanding the subject. IL-11 (includes Joliet), let’s find somebody to primary him.
Tom Emmer (MN-6): +5
“This is not a partisan issue,” “light touch” and blasted Gensler.
Brad Sherman (CA-30): -5
"Ethereum could be replaced by Doge which could be replaced by Hamstercoin.”
Resembles Dobby the House Elf if he got his face smashed in by a tire iron. Fortunately crypto has already recruited a rockstar challenger. Donate today, she even takes Bitcoin.
Barry Loudermilk (GA-11): +2
Not clear that blockchain will be the boon to cybersecurity that he’s hoping, but points for being against overregulation and recognizing how bad the Federal Government is at securing data.
Cindy Axne (IA-3): -2
Wants to “protect investors.” Thanks but no thanks, we’ve seen where “protection” leads.
Alex Mooney (WV-2): -2
Spent his time focused on Cuba? Don’t think Cuba’s a player in crypto, not even sure they have telephones.
Josh Gottheimer (NJ-5): -4
Oogah boogah “Bad actors” :eyeroll emoji: Need a primary challenger for NJ-5
Ted Budd (NC-13): +5
Slammed Gensler. Asked about anti-innovation regulation by enforcement. Got on record one of the best exchanges about America falling behind due to our idiotic regulation:
Budd: So we’re behind the curve?
Brooks: Unquestionably.
Discreetly plugged $CRV too, llama sense intensifying.
Stephen Lynch (MA-8): -5
Boasted about absurd reporting requirements and traditional banking protections. Primary challenger from Boston, let’s go!
David Kustoff (TN-8): +1
Fairly neutral line of questioning, but seemed pleasantly surprised to learn blockchain caught the pipeline hackers. We’ll take what we can get.
Alma Adams (NC-12): -1
Buys into the absurd surrealist theory pushed by the President’s Working Group paper that stablecoins could cause a systemic risk to the USD. Educate or NGMI.
Trey Hollingsworth (IN-9): +1
Legitimately knew nothing about crypto but at least genuinely curious to learn. Good enough.
Alexandria Ocasia-Cortez (NY-19): -2
Tried to play lawyerly gotcha games with Coinbase over silly semantics. This question is ominous as all get-out though:
“If the cryptocurrency hypothetically lost its ability to use stablecoins, would that cause a significant shift?”
Anthony Gonzalez: (OH-16) +4
Points for dunking on Sherman: “Frankly, anybody who would make such a claim should be ignored on this topic.”
Nails this too:
Gonzalez: When I look at Web3, I see a lot of projects moving overseas. To what degree is the current regulatory environment in the US contributing to this change where projects are now being built and domiciled in nations not the United States, whereas in previous versions of the internet they were.
SBF: I do think it has contributed to that.
Rashida Tlaib (MI-13): -5
Spent her entire time demanding Stellar answer for the energy usage of Bitcoin, a completely different coin. Off the charts stupid line of questions.
John Rose (TN-6): +2
“How do we keep that innovation happening in the United States”
A second question about quantum computing always worth an extra point.
Madeleine Dean (PA-4): 0
Worrying about volatility and threatening the existing financial system is silly. But suggested starting regulation over from scratch is positive.
Bryan Steil (WI-1): +3
Financial inclusion for underserved communities, and asked about positive regulations in other countries, dunking on Gensler.
Sylvia Garcia (TX-29): +2
Promoting access to the financial industry for immigrant populations. Ma’am yes ma’am!
William Timmons (SC-4): 0
Meh, for focus on hacks and law enforcement, don’t care. Stressing the diverse nature of crypto users evens this out.
Jake Auchincloss (MA-4): +5
“The current regime of regulation by enforcement in which entrepreneurs must negotiate with the SEC or the CFTC on a one-off basis is not fair, efficient, or conducive to US based innovation.”
Let’s go! Shut up and take our money!
Van Taylor (TX-3): +1
Represents Moneygram, so was braced for the worst. Not bad! “Do any of you feel unregulated” a choice line.
There we have it. Of course, none of these scores is officially written on-chain until the community votes it through. If you have other opinions or adjustments, drop your thoughts in the comments or drop by the PAC DAO Discord and ask about how you can participate! As a reminder, all paid subscriptions to this newsletter to towards PAC DAO. Disclaimers!