Mayhem looks to have broken loose in the realm of American politics, and the crypto community may be caught in the crossfire, as proof-of-stake (PoS) networks may be put in jeopardy at a time when Ethereum (ETH) is evolving toward PoS.
A contentious infrastructure bill that is moving quickly through the parliamentary system includes a number of measures pertaining to crypto players and how they are taxed. As previously stated, the majority of these are related to the legal definition of a “broker.” This week, the American crypto community attempted to rally support for a bipartisan amendment to the bill proposed by three senators, including cryptocurrency enthusiast Cynthia Lummis.
The original bill might force the crypto mining and trading community to pay a whopping USD 28 billion to help support hundreds of billions of dollars in government expenditure initiatives. Before paying taxes on their assets and prior earnings, miners and developers would be required to produce detailed lists of documents and transaction history records to Internal Revenue Service officials.
Lummis, along with Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden and Republican Senator Pat Toomey, offered an amendment that would remove miners, validators, blockchain developers, and wallet-making developers from being classified as “brokers” and thus subject to all of the bill’s restrictions.
But now a new wrench has been thrown into the works in the form of a brand new, competing amendment that appears to have the support of the White House.
Senators Rob Portman, Mark Warner, and Kyrsten Sinema introduced the amendment. Perhaps confusingly, this second amendment suggested the same type of exemption as the first amendment — but only for proof-of-work miners like Bitcoin (BTC) and (for the time being) ETH miners. That means that developers and validators on proof-of-stake networks like Cardano (ADA) (or the yet-to-be-launched Ethereum 2.0) would be classified as brokers, whereas Bitcoin protocol experts would be exempt.
Some were quick to point out that, in some ways, there appeared to be very little difference, if any, between the latest amendment proposal and the previous one.