Skip to playerSkip to main contentSkip to footer
  • 2 days ago
During a Senate Banking Committee hearing on Wednesday, Sen. Lisa Blunt Rochester(D-DE) asked Professor of Corporate Law Richard Painter about the consequences of deregulating cryptocurrency.
Transcript
00:00Senator Blunt, Rochester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the witnesses.
00:06I really welcome this hearing and the opportunity for a serious sustained engagement in digital
00:13asset market structure. This is enormously complex and could fundamentally reshape
00:21the bones of our economy. We've already seen what happens when digital finance grows without
00:26guardrails. The collapse of FTX, Terra Luna and Celsius wiped out billions in consumer savings
00:34and exposed glaring regulatory gaps. When regulation lags innovation, real people get hurt.
00:41At a time of rising prices and growing wealth inequality, I'm sure that we can all agree
00:48that the last thing we need is to rush or have a poorly designed market structure bill. And at the
00:54same time, I strongly believe in innovation. That's why I joined Senators Moreno and Sheehee to
01:00introduce the Bipartisan Deploying American Blockchains Act. And I support a bipartisan,
01:07thoughtful, transparent, and inclusive process, especially for legislation that could shape
01:13the future of U.S. capital markets. My first question is for you, Mr. Painter. What are the
01:20risks if Congress moves forward too quickly in legislating without broad input and clear
01:26understanding of market consequences? And how do we ensure that this process produces a bipartisan
01:34framework that can stand the test of time? The risk is that we repeat the experience of regulating the
01:39banks in the 1920s and the depression that followed, 10 years of depression. The risk is that we repeat
01:47what happened in 2008 when campaign contributions poured into Congress from the securities-based swap
01:54industry elsewhere in the financial services industry. And we had decades of deregulation.
02:00The economy collapsed. Millions of American families losing their homes, people unemployed. We've been
02:07through this again and again. And this Congress needs to get it right this time and carefully read this
02:13bill and listen to witnesses, including the witnesses who might not disagree. And instead of the personal
02:19attacks that I've experienced today, some dignity from this Senate, care in drafting this bill and
02:25thinking about the American people you represent, we do not want another economic collapse caused by
02:32deregulation of the financial services sector. And I want to ask you all, do you understand the bill?
02:39Have you listened to all sides? And are you willing to allow the regulators to exercise, use their
02:45expertise to watch what's going on in this sector, as Chairman Massad has suggested that you should?
02:53Please, we don't want to go through those experiences again.
02:56Thank you, Mr. Painter. You show why this is so vital that we get this right, because it will touch all of us.
03:04Mr. Massad, some proposals would let crypto companies decide for themselves which rules apply
03:11and which regulator they'd answer to. And that sounds a lot like the businesses picking their own
03:18cop on the beat, so to speak. How should Congress design a system that applies the rules fairly
03:24and earns the public's trust?
03:26Mr. Well, I think Congress should think in terms of principles, not trying to write detailed rules,
03:33because I think those can quickly become obsolete. I think number two, Congress does need to fill the
03:39gap in regulation that we've talked about with respect to the use of this technology for things that
03:45aren't securities. But, you know, to your point about the problems here, I mean, the problem with a
03:53lot of the proposals is that they try to write detailed rules that I don't think are going to
03:59provide the clarity and I think will provide a lot of opportunities for simply evasion of their
04:05intent. I respect the goals. The goal is clarity. We all want that. But I think you've got to be very
04:12careful about how you achieve that.
04:14Some people talk about regulatory standards for centralized systems, that they're inappropriate
04:20for crypto because it's inherently decentralized. But many of these protocols are run by centralized
04:28teams that control governance, the incentives and even the code. So how should Congress decide when a
04:34so-called decentralized protocol acts more like a centralized financial intermediary and regulate it as
04:41such? I think I think the principle Congress should have is just because it's decentralized doesn't
04:46mean it's free of regulation. Regulation may be different. But for example, if we had a decentralized
04:52protocol that became the primary market for trading treasury securities, we would not say, oh, because it's
05:00a decentralized protocol, we don't need to worry about regulation. So I think we may need different rules,
05:06but we still need rules. Thank you so much. I yield back.

Recommended