In this YouTube monologue, the host reviews the U.S. Senate hearing on Bitcoin and cryptocurrency, concluding that the overall tone was positive for Bitcoin. He highlights the CFTC chair Christopher Giancarlo’s remarks about a new generation’s interest in crypto, and the SEC chair’s focus on tighter disclosure for ICOs. The speaker raises concerns about the Senate’s discussion of waiving investors’ right to sue, arguing that clear, mandatory disclosures could protect taxpayers. He draws a parallel between crypto losses and gambling, questioning whether personal responsibility should outweigh regulatory safeguards. The host also touches on broader issues raised in the hearing—taxation, illicit use, and terrorism—asserting that these are separate criminal problems rather than inherent flaws of the technology. He notes a market uptick of roughly $50 billion in Bitcoin value following the hearing, and stresses that cryptocurrencies are not illegal per se, but must comply with existing laws. The video ends with a call to like, subscribe, and a hopeful outlook for the crypto community.
Chapters
Hey you, welcome back to the channel. And guys, uh, so the Bitcoin Senate hearing, um, was it good news for Bitcoins? Um, and it seems to be pretty much, uh, within the community, uh, that it was a very positive, uh, hearing. in regards to Bitcoins. And after watching the Senate hearing, I, I have to agree pretty much. I thought that the, the questions and the answers, the interest from the Senate, uh, as well as the, uh, head of the CFTC and SEC, uh, overall I thought the message seemed fair. I I thought it was handled well, and I thought that concerns, you know, that had been going around the crypto space were touched on. And although they didn't have all the answers, I felt the mood of how they want to pursue this felt— seemed like a good approach to me. I think Where a lot of positivity seemed to come into play was with the head of the CFTC, Christopher Giancarlo, you know, as he spoke about how his grandchildren and nieces, various people who had traded Bitcoins that were interested in it, were finally interested in some type of financial instrument from their generation and that he seemed to go with, he felt that it was fair to them and deserving of the new generations or the newer generations to decide as a community what instruments, financial instruments they want to trade, you know. And I thought that all was well. I thought that all went well. And the SEC head seemed to want to target ICOs. His problem was with ICOs. And again, even from his perspective, I felt that his approach was fair, that there was a concern with raising a lot of money but not letting off full disclosure. To the public about, uh, what happens with your money. Now, uh, here's why I had some problems with the hearing, you know, even though I thought it went well. Where I found certain issues problematic were, uh, we had Senator Warren question the head of the SEC, uh, about investor protection, disclosure, various things like that. Oh, I'm sorry, rather more so geared toward lawsuits. Could, could, um, investors come after, you know, people, uh, and how would they handle that? And the, uh, one thing was on the table was waiving the right to file lawsuits. Now here's my take on that. Uh, why, when we speak of full disclosure and there's this large complexity of what information needs to be relayed when, to whom, what, and where, uh, in order for it to be a legal investment. Now, uh, I get that people aren't savvy investors. I get that people could be manipulated by promoters and marketers, uh, you know, to get bombarded with information. Maybe some of these promoters and marketers use, uh, types of CIA tactics, you know, where they can, through some type of subliminal message, hypnotize the mind to get people to invest in things they don't understand what they're investing in. Okay, I'll even go for that. I'll even give them that. That's why, you know, we need to protect investors and various things like that. But in a very simplified language of the law, Why is it wrong and why is it so difficult to just require that every investment, every ICO, uh, have it publicly stated someplace that, uh, you are waiving your rights to pursue a lawsuit, which would save taxpayers money, would take everybody out of the loop? Just make them state dark black and white on every— on all their promotions, which should be very simple to do, and make them all do it so one won't be above the other or different from the other, that you have waived the right to a lawsuit. Because here's the thing, if anybody goes into an investment of any sort and they, um, have to waive the right to, to sue that, uh, investment in case there are some type of, um, uh, uh, criminal activity that they don't know of because they haven't done their due diligence, or they quote unquote aren't smart enough to, then, uh, these— I don't think it's gonna be much help for a person like that. Those— I, I would— and I don't mean to sound condescending, or I don't mean to, uh, you know, uh, you know, to, uh, you know, make people feel bad about this who, you know, who are watching the channel, but The reality of it is a person like that probably isn't going to even be a person who's able to manage their finances, right? Because I would look at a person like that as a person who makes bad financial decisions. And that's just the truth. You know, that, you know, provided that, you know, they saw this large statement that had to be included. And I think that would be fair for the community to adopt something like that. Just say, hey, you waive your rights to a lawsuit. That way you take taxpayers out of various things like that. And so I kind of had a problem with them thinking, the Senate, feeling like we have to hold the consumer's hand that much to the point where even waiving a right to a lawsuit is something that they can't see that this is a problematic place to put my money and that if I'm doing that, I'm doing that of my own free will. And various things like that. Another thing I would say to it is that if you look at the gambling industry, right, and you compare that to the type of money that's been lost in Bitcoin, the gambling community is probably worldwide might be approaching a trillion dollars a year that's lost. But I know gambling in the United States loses over about $100 billion a year, gamblers do. They lose about that. Now I know a lot of people will go, well, hey, you know, um, they know it's gambling, they know they can lose all their money. But I mean, is that, um, is that really an excuse though? Is that a valid excuse to allow something to exist where you can lose hundreds of billions of dollars so easily, where It's not fair to you that more likely you're gonna lose, but then turn around and say an investor doesn't have the ability to take care of himself to avoid a bad investment. Wouldn't that, wouldn't you, a person wanna say, but full disclosure, that's what it is. If that's what they feel is the problem, Okay, all right, we go with that. But I guess I also wanted to say, wanted to address the last part of the Senate hearing, or I just say probably what was gonna be the most difficult part to deal with, and that is the portion of what do you do with taxation and what do you do with terrorist activity. right? That those, you know, some big issues with cryptocurrency, right? And the problem is, or what I would say as far as taxation, is that taxation, if we could, if we take it to the last example, to account where they got gambling, where you can tax the casinos and various things, people can hide their money in Bitcoins, various things like that, try to avoid taxation. But I would say that you can avoid taxation without cryptocurrency, and people do all the time, but also that I would say avoiding taxation isn't a cryptocurrency problem. That's a criminal problem onto itself for tax evasion. You know, and sure, people can kind of hide, you know, their investments. People probably make investments throughout the world, that's investment dollars that aren't disclosed and various things like that. But as a deterrent to this activity, yes, I can understand that. But again, I would say that these are two different— people not paying their taxes and technology is kind of two different things. It's kind of like saying guns don't kill people, people kill people, right? Guns don't kill people, a person have to make a conscious effort to pick up a gun and kill somebody. So all that goes into play, but then this also becomes an issue of bigger government versus smaller government. How much interference do we need from the government in order to handle certain issues? And is it worth the taxpayer dollars? I just feel like there are a lot of things people can do, uh, um, and handle, uh, that the government shouldn't have to waste their time with. Like issues like, are you bad? Are you— do you make bad financial decisions? I don't think that that should be a problem to the government. I think a problem to the government should be like establishing a military, protecting the borders, building roads, and some various things in between that need to be done. But, um, you know, for the most part, when you're dealing with a specific issue like how do I spend my money, uh, and what do I spend it on, um, you know, I, it becomes a very long problematic issue. But this video is about Bitcoins. Was it positive? Yes, I would say it was definitely positive. We can kind of look at the market and see that Bitcoin picked up. I believe it was about $50 billion more or so, uh, and so, um, it's starting to, you know, turn around somewhat. I don't know if it'll you know, be a, you know, a big rise up like it was prior. I'm not a Bitcoin analyst in that way, but just the politics of, you know, how full disclosure could be, you know, pretty much done with cryptocurrency. I, you know, have some pretty, you know, pretty strong political stances on that, stands on that. And, but overall I thought it was pretty good. I thought the SEC head, his direction was, you know, still fair, that he's really just targeting the ICOs that raised all this money. Now, really, all ICOs have to do is pretty much follow the SEC rules when they're doing it. It's rules with the SEC that pretty much conform to everyone involved in the ICO. Some of them you don't even have to really technically report, it's good to report them, but depending on how much you're raising. Now obviously if you're raising $50 billion, or rather $50 million, $100 million, and various large sums of money, obviously you're going to attract a large amount of attention. And in those particular cases, I would think that Maybe once you raise the money, why not go legally file your offerings, right? Or something like that. You know, it's very public at that point and make the crypto space even more, um, you know, uh, you know, safer to use and more, send more positive vibes on it. But guys, uh, all in all, thought it was great. That's all I want to say about it. Um, I'm glad to see the cryptocurrency market taking a backseat. I'm also hopeful that people who ask many questions about cryptocurrency and Bitcoins and the like have seen this, um, have seen this, uh, hearing or will watch it, and they can kind of understand certain components of the cryptocurrency industry that they aren't all illegal. Because that's another thing that kind of goes over— a lot of people just think cryptocurrency is just illegal, period. Uh, they don't have the understanding that it is legal to create your coins, um, your own community coins, and use what you deem as money amongst each other, amongst who's willing to take it. But you know, there are certain, uh, jurisdictions of obviously where you have to pay your taxes and various laws you have to abide within those communities. But within the instrument itself, they aren't illegal. So anyway guys, that's all I want to say. Guys, if you like content like this, don't forget to like and subscribe. And until next time, take care.
