- The ‘bipartisan’ stablecoin bill put before the House Financial Services Committee yesterday has been criticized by Democrats
- Republicans were in broad agreement with the sentiment of the bill, but ranking member Maxime Waters hit out at the bill
- Waters argued that it was nothing like the bill she had discussed with chair Patrick McHenry
The promised ‘bipartisan’ stablecoin bill put forward to the House Financial Services Committee yesterday has been heavily critcized by Democrats who called it “outdated”. The bill, proposed by representatives Maxine Waters and Patrick McHenry, was praised by Republicans but was not welcomed by, among others, Waters herself, who felt that it didn’t reflect the discussions the pair had had over the matter.
A Year in the Making
The House Financial Services Committee released a preliminary version of the stablecoin bill on April 15, aimed at imposing regulations on payment stablecoin issuers while also exploring the possibility of a digital dollar. This legislation, which has not yet been given a name, would disallow any business from issuing stablecoins except for subsidiaries of insured depository institutions, or licensed non-bank entities.
The bill was extensively discussed by Waters, McHenry, and others last year, while the Treasury Department was also involved in developing the initial regulations which would affect a significant segment of the crypto industry.
“Starting From Scratch”
However, Waters clearly didn’t get what she expected from the bill, as her comments during the session reflected:
Mr. McHenry alarmed me somewhat when he said that the members on his side of the aisle had come up with a whole new bill. The posted bill in no way represents…negotiations between the two of us…I think we’re starting from scratch.
McHenry, who serves as committee chair, remained steadfast in his wording of the bill, which he said was “both internationally and domestically” important. The hearing also saw discussions over the crypto space in general, particularly since FTX has collapsed in the months during which the bill has been drafted, meaning that it takes on even more significance.