Senator Moreno’s bipartisan blockchain bill… That all seems great. Bipartisan! Blockchain! What's not to love? Well, maybe everything. Before we put a cork in it and pop a bottle of bubbly, though, let’s consider four hard questions. As we know all too well in Washington, D.C., sometimes what looks good on paper isn’t so great in reality. This holds particularly true when considering fund and tech silos.
Is This Really About Innovation?
Now, I’m not accusing Senator Moreno of being a mustache-twirling supervillain rubbing his hands together at the thought of enslaving the children of the crypto realm. But let's be real. This bill creates a "National Blockchain Deployment Advisory Committee" reporting to the Commerce Secretary, who then advises the President. Does that sound like decentralization to you? On the face of it, this sounds like a lot of new red tape, just more ways for the federal government to meddle where they ought not to meddle.
Consider the last time the federal government attempted to “assist” an industry. The Dodd-Frank Act, anyone? Was that really making life easier for the everyday consumer? Or perhaps it merely imposed a bureaucratic web of spawn innumerable amounts of red tape and increased the power of the largest banks. This smells similar. The road to tyranny is paved with good intentions, and this “blockchain bill” would effectively lay down another brick.
Red flag.Red.Freaking.Flag.
Follow the Money, Always Follow It
Moreno’s got a personal stake in blockchain, having co-founded a company that digitizes car titles using the technology. Okay, cool. But don’t overlook tens of millions of dollars in crypto industry cash that warped his election campaign. Tens of millions! This is a cause for serious concern. Is this bill really about encouraging innovation, or is it simply a vehicle to reward well-connected campaign contributors?
As in the case of Big Pharma funding “independent” studies that somehow find their drugs safe and effective. Are we really thinking that kind of enormous financial backing has no influence on the bill being considered? It’s difficult to look at that connection and not be moved. Come on.
This feels like the early days of the internet honestly. You know when our politicians were tripping all over themselves to “regulate” the internet. At least they said it was for our own good, to protect us from… well, whatever democratic boogeyman they could dream up. What they really wanted was control. Control over the narrative, control over outreach, control over our fate. Is this blockchain bill any different?
Who's Really on the Advisory Committee?
The composition of this "National Blockchain Deployment Advisory Committee" is crucial. Will it be populated with true innovators, open-minded disruptors, and crypto believers? Or will it serve as a swamp full of spoiled government appointees, industry lackeys, and political cronyism? I'm betting on the latter.
Think about it: the Commerce Secretary, a political appointee, gets to advise the President on blockchain technology. What other qualifications does the Commerce Secretary truly have in this intensely detailed and quickly developing sphere of conservation? Probably about as much as my grandma.
This is where the “Trojan Horse” comparison is relevant. The bill is portrayed as a wonderful gift to the blockchain community, a means of legitimizing and promoting the technology. Yet that generous gift may be delivering the very seeds of heavy-handed government control. It would chill innovation and ultimately short-circuit the fundamental decentralization that makes blockchain so transformative. It’s the same as the “Patriot Act” marketed as combating terrorism—which it was, but opened the door for dangerous government surveillance.
As the bill currently reads, the Secretary of Commerce would simply be a “principal advisor” on the matter. The house bill gives the Secretary of Commerce a consultative function on blockchain issues. It calls for the establishment of a “Blockchain Deployment Program” at the Commerce Department. This is concerning.
What's The Real Endgame Here?
Now, I'm not against sensible regulation. First, I completely get the desire to protect consumers and prevent bad guys from using your platform. This bill feels different. In other words, it seems like a power grab. The federal government appears to be ready and willing to extend their reach to an emerging industry that threatens to upend their long-held status quo.
Consider the broader context: crypto is becoming a major focus in Congress. The White House already has one such working group. Everyone's suddenly interested in blockchain. Why now? What's driving this sudden surge of interest?
Maybe it's just a coincidence. Maybe I'm just being paranoid. But I've seen this movie before. In comes the federal government, pledging to “fix” our problems, and somehow making everything worse.
If we are to avoid blindly swallowing this initial praise, we must demand transparency. Because now we need to unsparingly examine every line, every provision, every possible loophole. Because the future of blockchain, and maybe even the future of freedom, might just hinge on it. Don’t let them con you out of your bucks.
