Senator Moreno’s bipartisan blockchain bill is riding high on the enthusiasm of its supporters, and at first glance appears to be a good thing. More blockchain adoption? Who's against that? Hold on a minute here. As someone who's been neck-deep in this technology for years, I see potential pitfalls that could actually stifle the very innovation it claims to promote. Let's talk about it.
Bureaucracy Over Blockchain Brilliance?
The core of the bill revolves around creating a "National Blockchain Deployment Advisory Committee" within the Commerce Department. Sounds official, right? And that's precisely the problem. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not opposed to advice— after all, innovation does famously flourish beneath mountains of red-tape, right?
Think about it. You've got a group of people, likely including government appointees, potentially influenced by lobbying efforts (remember Senator Moreno's crypto industry backing?). That committee would then go on to advise the Commerce Secretary, who in turn advises the President of the United States.
We’re not just talking about any technology—we’re talking about one that’s developing at warp speed. By the time this advisory committee was able to come to a consensus, the landscape may have already changed entirely. It’s as if you’re trying to use the internet on dial-up. You’re already behind. The White House has its own workforce working group and H. The White House has its own workforce working group and H. It's becoming a minefield of red tape.
If we do not, we conflate speed with a more cumbersome, anti-innovation heavy-handed approach. This approach will benefit legacy incumbents, while leaving smaller, nimbler startups—the real drivers of innovation—out in the cold.
Let’s not kid ourselves, when the average person hears “blockchain,” they first, second, and third think “cryptocurrency. The bill would recognize this but in practice, Senator Moreno was largely funded by the crypto cartel. Blockchain technology holds incredible potential that extends far beyond cryptocurrency. Yet, this bill as written could inadvertently favor one industry over all others, leaving other equally valuable blockchain applications on the cutting room floor.
Is This About Crypto, Really?
Yet by regulating blockchain technology, are we just setting up rules that benefit one particular use of blockchain above all others? Are we choosing winners and losers before the race has even started? It’s a good question, and one worth some serious interrogation. I'm concerned about the long-term effects here.
The US is not the only contender for blockchain superiority. China, Singapore, and Switzerland are just three of the countries that have recently announced major investments in this technology. Does this bill truly put us ahead of the curve? Or does it create a compliance hurdle that becomes a regulatory roadblock, pushing innovation out of the country?
Global Race, Or a Regulatory Roadblock?
Consider this: overly restrictive regulations, even with good intentions, can force blockchain companies to relocate to more favorable jurisdictions. In doing so, we risk losing out on the economic benefits, the job creation, and the technological advancements that blockchain promises.
Are we really winning the race, or are we actually losing ground to our foreign competitors?
This is where the anxiety kicks in. Are we shooting ourselves in the foot?
The Administration’s proposed “Blockchain Deployment Program” at the Commerce Department appears like a good faith effort. It makes a big red flag go up. Blockchain is not a one-size-fits-all solution. Its use cases are extraordinarily varied — from supply chain efficiency to healthcare to digital identity — the possibilities are endless.
One-Size-Fits-All Innovation? No Thanks.
Trying to force-fit blockchain into a pre-defined program really misses the point on the needs and challenges unique to various industries. It’s sort of like the attempt to use a hammer to turn in a light bulb. You may be able to accomplish it, but you’ll likely destroy something valuable while doing so.
What we need is a loose, flexible, nimble framework that enables experimentation and trial-and-error and lets things grow organically.
There’s a razor thin distinction between trying to foster innovation and overstepping one’s bounds to thwart it. While Senator Moreno's bill aims to foster blockchain adoption, it's crucial to consider the potential unintended consequences. Setting up advisory committees and creating government innovation programs sounds nice, but they often inadvertently kill innovation. Needless bureaucracy can warp the market and chase both talent and billions in investment across our borders.
Innovation vs. Intervention
We want a dynamic, market-driven, competitive blockchain ecosystem—free from stifling government intervention, not one controlled by Washington. The only way to accomplish the latter is to create a federal regulatory climate that is transparent, consistent and least burdensome. It should be the American marketplace, not a committee in Washington, that determines the development and success of different blockchain applications.
Let's ensure that this bill genuinely helps and doesn't inadvertently hinder the future of blockchain innovation. Because right now, I'm not entirely convinced.
Let's ensure that this bill genuinely helps, and doesn't inadvertently hinder, the future of blockchain innovation. Because right now, I'm not entirely convinced.
