While moving forward with a legislative initiative called Big Beautiful Bill (Spanish: Large and Beautiful Bill) in the United States, voices have been raised not only among national finances, but also among people who view the proposal as a threat to Bitcoin users (BTC) and cryptocurrency privacy.
The 1,000-page fiscal law project, located in the section 112105, proposes a special 5% tax on overseas remittances, using the Office for Financial Protection of Consumers (CFPB) definition of “remittance transfers.” This allows for the use of suppliers such as banks. Exchange of Cryptocurrencyin which Binance or Coinbase will act as tax collectors In the case of the Ministry of Finance.
However, regulations approved last week by the U.S. House of Representatives include the possibility that Americans can avoid taxes. This is whether they identify and use suppliers that comply with the Treasure Verification Agreement, but such exemptions require disclosure of personal information. This creates privacy concerns.
In this comment, Peter Van Valkenburgh, director of research at Coin Center, a nonprofit organization that promotes cryptocurrency favorable public policies. This is described as a “large-scale surveillance and financial management regime” in which taxes punish people with privacy. “This is a ‘paper please’ arrangement for Americans who want a transaction that does not contain forfeiture tax,” he says.
Users manage their own funds without intermediaries, but trading using wallet-free wallets is exempt as centralized exchanges protecting user funds can be subject to taxes.
Still, the legal blank allows cryptocurrency transfers that do not specify that foreign recipients are not exempt, as the supplier is not obligated to verify the destination of the funds. This could encourage the use of custody wallets, but also increases the risk that treasures will impose stricter regulations.
In this regard, the bill is Forced intermediaries such as centralized cryptocurrency exchanges collect personal information About people who are not customers. This in particular calls the precedent “midnight regulations in 2020.” This criticised Coin Center for attempting to impose data collection requirements on transaction recipients that are not direct customers of the supplier.
Given this, Coin Center proposes safeguards that limit the scope of the tax, such as banning treasures that require suppliers to collect data from people who are not clients and eliminate non-custodial entities as software developers or digital miners. They also advocate a mechanism for it Allow citizens to demonstrate without compromising additional personal informationuses privacy preservation technology.
including the abolishment of regulations on SAB 121 or the immediate approval reported by Cryptootics, but despite recent advances in Bitcoin and cryptocurrency regulations, such as the abolition of regulations on SAB 121 and the establishment of national innovation for US prescription. However, the community remains vigilant due to the ambiguity of funds protected by the exchange of Bitcoin and cryptocurrency, and the potential for more invasive regulation.
“It’s a debt bomb.”
The great and beautiful bill also raised other concerns, as Peter Schiff warned. Bitcoin’s well-known critics have denounced the project, saying this will not make the US great again, but it “perpetuates the disruptive fiscal policy that contributed to our fall.”
For economic commentators, the bill is ironically a drop to match glass; Sovereignty crisis and debtit should already happen. Schiff warns that the project will exacerbate structural problems in the financial system, weaken the dollar and bring the country closer to an economic crisis.
The same goes for the Republican leader Thomas Massey, known for his libertarian position, voted against the bill in the House and considered him a “debt bomb.”
«I’d like to be here and tell the American people that we can cut their taxes and increase their spending. That way, everything will be fine. But I’m here to communicate the real dose, so I can’t do it.
Thomas Massey, Republican MP.
According to Massie, the project It will significantly increase short-term deficitsA promising financial responsibility over five years, a promise that it deems unfeasible. “This bill is debt
Massie, along with John Davidson, was the only Republican to vote against him, but Andy Harris voted “now.” All Democrats opposed the project. Massey criticized the lack of financial responsibility, comparing the project to “put coal into a boiler and directing the course towards the iceberg,” and comparing the country to the Titanic.
He also pointed to the hypocrisy of approving such a controversial measure early in the morning, saying, “If something is beautiful, it won’t take place after midnight.” His opposition parties have won an attack on him by President Donald Trump, who threatened to oust him from his office.