The
U.S.
Senate
joined
the
House
of
Representatives
in
voting
to
repeal
a
controversial
U.S.
Securities
and
Exchange
Commission
(SEC)
accounting
rule
that
imposed
burdensome
capital
requirements
on
crypto
custodians.
That’s
a
relatively
big
deal,
considering
the
so-called
Staff
Accounting
Bulletin,
a.k.a.
SAB
121,
was
one
of
the
few
things
the
crypto
and
banking
industries
have
been
aligned
in
opposing.
Note:
The
views
expressed
in
this
column
are
those
of
the
author
and
do
not
necessarily
reflect
those
of
CoinDesk,
Inc.
or
its
owners
and
affiliates.
This
is
an
excerpt
from
The
Node
newsletter,
a
daily
roundup
of
the
most
pivotal
crypto
news
on
CoinDesk
and
beyond.
You
can
subscribe
to
get
the
full
newsletter
here.
Unfortunately
however,
the
legislative
measure
is
now
heading
to
the
desk
of
President
Joseph
Biden,
who
has
vowed
to
veto
it
in
a
show
of
solidarity
with
the
SEC.
Although
a
number
of
high
profile
Democrats,
including
New
York
Sen.
Chuck
Schumer,
voted
in
favor
of
overturning
the
bulletin,
the
Senate’s
60
to
38
vote
on
Thursday
failed
to
cross
the
threshold
to
override
a
presidential
veto.
It’s
hard
to
read
the
tea
leaves
of
the
vote,
which
almost
suggests
something
of
a
realignment
among
legislators
willing
to
pass
decent
crypto
regulations
(or
at
least
repeal
the
bad).
Then
again,
there
are
a
number
of
reasons
why
it’d
make
sense
to
ditch
SAB
121,
not
the
least
of
which
is
that
the
nonpartisan
Government
Accountability
Office
found
the
SEC
forced
it
through
without
proper
congressional
oversight.
Of
course,
perennially
antagonistic
crypto
skeptic
Sen.
Elizabeth
Warren
voted
to
keep
the
rule
in
place,
arguing
“The
unique
risks
of
crypto
can
create
liabilities
that
seriously
impact
a
company’s
financial
condition.
SAB
121
simply
clarifies
how
companies
should
account
for
those
risks
in
their
financial
disclosures.”
But
still,
is
the
bipartisan
support
a
good
sign
for
other
legislative
efforts,
like
the
proposed
stablecoin
and
market
structure
bills
under
consideration?
Views
are
split:
“Hate
to
be
a
downer
here,
but
I
don’t
think
D
support
to
rescind
crypto
accounting
rule
means
a
veto
won’t
happen.
I
think
the
D
‘ayes’
on
the
anti-SBA
121
vote
were
cast
because
they
know
the
White
House
is
going
to
veto
it.
It’s
the
cart,
not
the
horse,”
James
Wester,
director
of
crypto
and
co-head
of
payments
at
Javelin,
said
on
X.
Apparently
it’s
easier
to
vote
for
something
you
know
will
ultimately
get
showdown?
Meanwhile,
Columbia
Business
School
associate
professor
Austin
Campbell
said
that
Thursday’s
vote
proves
that
crypto
is
bipartisan.
“This
is
a
American
issue,
not
a
partisan
one,”
he
said.
See
also:
Will
Biden
Get
the
Final
Say
Over
a
Controversial
Crypto
Rule?
|
Opinion
Whatever
the
case,
it
is
worrying
how
precarious
crypto
legislation
is.
A
rule
that
two
pluralities
vote
in
favor
of,
that
is
widely
criticized
by
industry
actors
and
has
even
been
called
“idiotic”
by
knowledgeable
actors
like
Nadine
Chakar,
often
called
one
of
the
most
important
women
in
finance
who
helped
found
State
Street
Digital
and
is
now
running
DTCC’s
crypto
unit,
(and
who
is
speaking
at
Consensus
2024),
will
likely
remain
in
place.
This
isn’t
even
just
purely
an
academic
issue,
because
the
SAB
121
–
though
technically
“nonbinding”
–
is
already
having
an
effect
on
financial
institutions
ability
to
enter
into
the
crypto
custody
business,
according
to
an
open
letter
signed
by
the
Bank
Policy
Institute
(BPI),
American
Bankers
Association
(ABA),
Financial
Services
Forum
(FSF)
and
the
Securities
Industry
and
Financial
Markets
Association
(SIFMA)
in
February.
I
mean,
this
is
a
bit
of
a
counterfactual,
but
how
far
advanced
would
sectors
like
stablecoins
and
interbank
blockchain
rails
be
had
clear
regulations
been
written
years
ago?
It
seems
trivially
true
that
regulatory
uncertainty
(and
more
recently,
hostility)
has
prevented
firms
from
experimenting
with
crypto.
For
instance,
certainly
some
big
custodians
would
be
interested
in
custodying
all
that
ETF
bitcoin,
as
Fortune’s
Jeff
John
Roberts
recently
wrote.
It’s
interesting
that
12
Dems
in
the
Senate
could
come
together
to
help
vote
down
a
harmful
rule,
but
I’m
not
sure
the
SAB
121
story
is
really
all
that
encouraging.
