Sure, if you bend over backwards and squint through one eye, you can contort yourself into the bad faith interpretation that developers will be treated as brokers--given they can engage in "transfers."

But just because some entity can be considered to exist on the same "continuum" as crypto brokers, doesn't mean there isn't a clear division between them: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Continuum_fallacy

One could also contort themselves into the assertion that convenience stores engage in transfers with "digital assets" (shifting credit via digitally created loans provided by Visa).

Maybe I should publish an article saying this legislation will require 7-Eleven to report to the government every time you buy a twinkie? That'll really get some clicks!

> the proposal would seek to expand the definition of “broker” under section 6045(c)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to include anyone who is “responsible for and regularly providing any service effectuating transfers of digital assets”

Then this appears to be false

> something that isn't actually in the legislation

Because "digital asset" is extremely broad and can easily be seen to cover things like video game inventory items.

Is there a specific and detailed definition of "video asset" in the legislation?

Practically, the Secretary and the courts will decide what this means.

If you’re using in-game tokens to represent value and maintain a ledger, then sure, that could count. Which is good. why should it be possible to sidestep this law by creating a coin that is liquid and fungible and has etfs that track it but just happens to be used for in game purchases? That would be a silly and absurd loophole.

If your in game currency is one-way, ie can’t be converted back to USD or any other assets, then it’s by (legal) definition not representation of value.

Because if I make a game where items drop, and players can transfer items between each other, but not convert any of it to real world money... then making the system, or possibly every single player, be responsible for reporting all activity and participants to the government is... to be blunt, bat-shit crazy?

Beyond that, it depends, but the answer definitely isn’t “no”. That’s true even today, btw: game companies can’t knowingly allow money laundering through their in game currency, for example, and gambling laws almost always apply if you can cash out and the game contains any type of chance component (eg loot boxes).

Basically, if your game is setup in a way that could be trivially used for transferring real world assets between players, even existing regulations probably already apply. This is one of many reasons most games only support one way transactions — you can move money into the game but not back out (at least without breaking tos)

“X but in a video game” is almost always actually really X when it comes to money and other assets that can flow into and out of the game easily. A VR Wells Fargo branch is still a bank.

That's a pretty far cry from needing to report "user data, including users’ names and addresses" for every in game transfer of digital assets. (As noted in another message, it's still unclear to me if that's what the bill is requiring).

> Value sometimes expresses the inherent usefulness of an object and sometimes the power of purchasing other goods with it. The first is called value in use, the latter value in exchange. Value in use is the utility of an object in satisfying, directly or indirectly, the needs or desires of human beings. Value in exchange is the amount of commodities, commonly represented by money, for which a thing can be exchanged in an open market. This concept is usually referred to as market value.

Conceptually, in game items certainly have a an "inherent usefulness", in that they make the game more enjoyable for the person (or person's character) that possesses the item. This value is transferred between players regardless of whether or not the game provides a way to convert it to real money. For all practical purposes, it is impossible for any game that supports trading assets between characters to completely prevent interactions of the form "if you give me this item, I will give you some amount of real world money".

It seems that any in game assets meet the legal definition of value (that I understand from that page). This would mean that any transfer of said assets between characters would need to be reported on.

I'm open to clarification/correction, with a clear statement that my understanding of this is extremely limited. But it seems like the above is accurate. And seems to fall into the previously mentioned "bat-shit crazy" bucket, if true.

[1] Value https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Value

(Digital) representation of value means something more specific in the context of securities law. Something that has intrinsic value but cannot be used as a medium of exchange, unit of account, or store of value is unlikely to be regulated as a security.

There's the thing though. The minute you get to the point where the law is ambiguous, you start seeing law enforcement using it as leverage to get what the want. If the bar is "can they convince a judge that this should count", then they an use it to screw someone over.

I'm in favor of strong limitations on the powers granted to government officials, because there ARE bad apples; and giving the good apples power means the bad apples can decide to ruin someone's life because they can.

But thank you. I very much appreciate you taking the time to put forth your thoughts / knowledge on the subject.

Regulations are rarely explicitly legislated because legislative bodies don't have the time or expertise to maintain the specifics of regulations. Of course, you always want there to be appropriate scoping, but some division of responsibility between the executive and legislative branches is necessary.

I think a good middle-ground here is the updated language from Wyden et al.. I'm not sure how much leverage they have, though -- (D)s won't defect over this issue and it's unclear whether people like Toomey could be brought on board. And if it's not going to flip votes, then changing the language isn't really worth the lift. I would guess the best way to get this change adapted would be to pressure Toomey to vote on infra but insist on this change -- a single additional (R) in the Senate would make this language change over night. But, again, I kind of doubt Toomey considers this a wedge issue.

> If the bar is "can they convince a judge that this should count", then they an use it to screw someone over. I'm in favor of strong limitations on the powers granted to government officials, because there ARE bad apples; and giving the good apples power means the bad apples can decide to ruin someone's life because they can.

It's not just a judge or a single official. The Secretary will create rules through the regular rule-making process. And then those rules might be challenged in court.

I believe digital asset is a defined term in this legislation, though the quote doesn’t show any capitalisation.

These definitions are critical and updates to modify a definition without modifying the text can still have dramatic affect.

Pardon me for having a legal education and knowing that prosecutors are often more than willing to bend over backwards and squint through one eye.

If it's possible for a prosecutor to argue it, they will eventually argue it, and most of the time the courts won't push back.

They only need the thinnest veneer of legality in order to abuse their power.

You mean that squinting and bending that DAs often do to get some ridiculous plea bargain from some innocent schmuck?

>>Law professors and lawyers instinctively shy away from considering the problem of law’s violence. Every law is violent. We try not to think about this, but we should. On the first day of law school, I tell my Contracts students never to argue for invoking the power of law except in a cause for which they are willing to kill. They are suitably astonished, and often annoyed. But I point out that even a breach of contract requires a judicial remedy; and if the breacher will not pay damages, the sheriff will sequester his house and goods; and if he resists the forced sale of his property, the sheriff might have to shoot him.

>>This is by no means an argument against having laws.

>>It is an argument for a degree of humility as we choose which of the many things we may not like to make illegal.

"Disaster" is a loaded word, but of course it would be a huge privacy improvement if they didn't!

This isn't like that at all. This would be like the government requiring Microsoft to KYC every single user of Excel, because people use their software to manage money.

This is like saying "The Internet is for porn" because that's your only exposure to it. Yes, it's the most common early use - but it's very far from the only use.

If you couple things badly, you can end up with more responsibilities than you want

The central premise of these projects is that humans make terrible decisions, markets make good decisions, so let's replace humans with markets whenever possible. Right now, some exec at Google determines how many ads you see on the Internet. The premise of Brave & BAT is that you decide whether you want to see ads on the Internet, you get compensated for viewing them, and if enough people decide the ads are not worth their time, they'll turn them off and drive the price of BAT up enough that people do want to view them.

Right now, some exec at Amazon decides how much you pay for S3. The premise of FileCoin & IPFS is that lots of ordinary home users have spare hard drive space, and they should be able to be compensated for renting out that space to projects that need lots of distributed storage. The market price of FileCoin is that which equilibrates demand for storage with supply.

S3 is centralized.

This is not an apples to apples comparison.

Compensation is what is driving the decentralized ecosystem (including payments, file storage, among the other things mentioned in this thread).

https://greentradertax.com/a-case-for-retail-forex-traders-u...

Yes. Do you not? They have no right to that information. Why do so many in the "hacker" culture simp for the authority structure?

Pretty sure I get to call myself a hacker in any sense of that word.

I’m a fan of KYC and paying taxes precisely because I’m a hacker and can immediately see how easy it is to hack civil society without those things.

Also, this isn’t a forum for hackers in any definition of the word. It’s a public discussion forum run by and often for the benefit of a powerful and rich VC firm with substantial investments in alt fin tech speculation. are you sure you’re not the one simping?

(Personally, I think the wording has to be tightened. My only stance is crypto should be on-par with other banking laws. No special treatment. Crypto should (hopefully) succeed but shouldn't become a refuge for money laundering, facilitation of crimes and other less than desirable activities. It could lead to long term harm for the ecosystem than adding KYC and making it mainstream.)

If you don't believe that the government should be allowed to attempt to tackle money laundering, that such crime is simply to be shielded at all cost from being reduced, then that's another.

So the question is "what do you want?".

And the cryptocurrency community has been completely unable to present anything that isn't literal anarchy or feudalism. And guess what, nobody will be able to sell anarchy or feudalism to the general public, or even outside a very very small community.

This other comment said it better: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28047145

Yes. Clearly.

My car doesn't keep an up to date record of my name and adress so it can report my position and speed to the authorities. Warrantless wiretapping is illegal in most (every?) form outside finance, and there's no justification for banks or investment firms being any different.

Governments have a right to make laws, they don't have a right to continuously monitor every citizen to enforce them.

Yes.

Yes, I do. The IRS has slowly gathered power since 1913. Federal taxes were supposed to be short term and temporary, for war levies and such.

Furthermore, the tax code within the constitution controverts itself: "all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States" - I.8.1

It results in yet another area where "laws are for little people."