Connect with us

Published

on

Pro-crypto Democrats pull support for stablecoin bill in last minute

A group of US Senate Democrats known for supporting the crypto industry have said they would oppose a Republican-led stablecoin bill if it moves forward in its current form.

The move threatens to stall legislation that could establish the first US regulatory framework for stablecoins, according to a May 3 report from Politico.

Per the report, nine Senate Democrats said in a joint statement that the bill “still has numerous issues that must be addressed.” They warned they would not support a procedural vote to advance the legislation unless changes are made.

Among the signatories were Senators Ruben Gallego, Mark Warner, Lisa Blunt Rochester and Andy Kim — all of whom had previously backed the bill when it passed through the Senate Banking Committee in March.

The bill, introduced by Senator Bill Hagerty, is formally known as the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for US Stablecoins (GENIUS) Act.

Related: Fed’s Powell reasserts support for stablecoin legislation

Senate prepares to vote on stablecoin bill

The Senate is expected to begin floor consideration of the bill in the coming days, with the first vote potentially taking place next week.

The bill has been championed by the crypto industry as a landmark step toward regulatory clarity. However, the Democrats’ about-face reflects growing unease within the party.

Although revisions were made to the bill after its committee approval to address Democratic concerns, the lawmakers said the changes fell short. They called for stronger safeguards related to Anti-Money Laundering, national security, foreign issuers, and accountability measures for noncompliant actors.

The statement was also signed by Senators Raphael Warnock, Catherine Cortez Masto, Ben Ray Luján, John Hickenlooper and Adam Schiff.

Pro-crypto Democrats pull support for stablecoin bill in last minute
A copy of the statement. Source: Alex Thorn

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand and Senator Angela Alsobrooks were absent from the list, who co-sponsored the bill alongside Hagerty.

Despite their objections, the Democratic senators emphasized their commitment to shaping responsible crypto regulation. They reportedly said they “are eager to continue working with our colleagues to address these issues.”

Related: US banks are ‘free to begin supporting Bitcoin’

Crypto needs a stablecoin bill

On April 27, Caitlin Long, founder and CEO of Custodia Bank, criticized the US Federal Reserve for quietly maintaining a key anti-crypto policy that favors big-bank-issued stablecoins, despite relaxing crypto partnership rules for banks.

Long explained that while the Fed recently rescinded four prior crypto guidelines, a Jan. 27, 2023, statement was left intact in coordination with the Biden administration.

The guidance, according to Long, blocks banks from engaging directly with crypto assets and prohibits them from issuing stablecoins on permissionless blockchains.

However, Long noted that once a federal stablecoin bill becomes law, it could override the Fed’s stance. “Congress should hurry up,” she urged.

Magazine: Financial nihilism in crypto is over — It’s time to dream big again

Continue Reading

Politics

Crypto trader ups MEXC ‘bounty’ to $2.5M after in-person KYC request

Published

on

By

Crypto trader ups MEXC ‘bounty’ to .5M after in-person KYC request

Crypto trader ups MEXC ‘bounty’ to .5M after in-person KYC request

The “White Whale” increased his social media pressure campaign to $2.5 million after claiming that MEXC requested an in-person KYC verification in Malaysia.

Continue Reading

Politics

US appeals time served sentences for HashFlare Ponzi schemers

Published

on

By

US appeals time served sentences for HashFlare Ponzi schemers

US appeals time served sentences for HashFlare Ponzi schemers

Prosecutors appealed the sentences given to HashFlare founders Sergei Potapenko and Ivan Turõgin, after arguing the pair should get 10 years in prison.

Continue Reading

Politics

Nigel Farage has a new ‘leave’ campaign – here’s how it could work and how it might impact you

Published

on

By

Nigel Farage has a new 'leave' campaign - here's how it could work and how it might impact you

Nigel Farage has said he would take the UK out of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) if Reform win the next election.

The party’s leader also reaffirmed his pledge to repeal the Human Rights Act and disapply three other international treaties acting as “roadblocks” to deporting anyone entering the UK illegally.

In a speech about tackling illegal migration, he said a Reform government would detain and deport any migrants arriving illegally, including women and children, and they would “never, ever be allowed to stay”.

Sky News looks at what the ECHR is, how the UK could leave, and what could happen to human rights protections if it does.

What is the ECHR?

On 4 November 1950, the 12 member states of the newly formed Council of Europe (different to the EU) signed the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms – otherwise known as the ECHR.

It came into force on 3 September 1953 and has since been signed by an additional 34 Council of Europe members who have joined, bringing the total to 46 signatories.

The treaty was drafted in the aftermath of the Second World War and the Holocaust to protect people from the most serious human rights violations. It was also in response to the growth of Stalinism in central and Eastern Europe to protect members from communist subversion.

The treaty was the first time fundamental human rights were guaranteed in law.

Sir Winston Churchill helped establish the Council of Europe and was a driving force behind the ECHR, which came from the Charter of Human Rights that he championed and was drafted by British lawyers.

Sir Winston Churchill was a driving force behind the ECHR
Image:
Sir Winston Churchill was a driving force behind the ECHR

To be a signatory of the ECHR, a state has to be a member of the Council of Europe – and they must “respect pluralist democracy, the rule of law and human rights”.

There are 18 sections, including the most well-known: Article 1 (the right to life), Article 3 (prohibition of torture), Article 6 (right to a fair trial), Article 8 (right to private and family life) and Article 10 (right to freedom of expression).

The ECHR has been used to halt the deportation of migrants in 13 out of 29 UK cases since 1980.

ECHR protections are enforced in the UK through the Human Rights Act 1998, which incorporates most ECHR rights into domestic law. This means individuals can bring cases to UK courts to argue their ECHR rights have been violated, instead of having to take their case to the European Court of Human Rights.

Article 8 is the main section that has been used to stop illegal migrant deportations, but Article 3 has also been successfully used.

Read more:
Why Farage’s small boats plan is not actually about policy
Legal expert explains if Farage deportation plan would work

The ECHR is interpreted by judges at this court in Strasbourg, France. File pic: AP
Image:
The ECHR is interpreted by judges at this court in Strasbourg, France. File pic: AP

How is it actually used?

The ECHR is interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) – you’ll have to bear with us on the confusingly similar acronyms.

The convention is interpreted under the “living instrument doctrine”, meaning it must be considered in the light of present-day conditions.

The number of full-time judges corresponds to the number of ECHR signatories, so there are currently 46 – each nominated by their state for a non-renewable nine-year term. But they are prohibited from having any institutional ties with the state they come from.

An individual, group of individuals, or one or more of the signatory states can lodge an application alleging one of the signatory states has breached their human rights. Anyone who have exhausted their human rights case in UK courts can apply to the ECtHR to have their case heard in Strasbourg.

All ECtHR hearings must be heard in public, unless there are exceptional circumstances to be heard in private, which happens most of the time following written pleadings.

The court may award damages, typically no more than £1,000 plus legal costs, but it lacks enforcement powers, so some states have ignored verdicts and continued practices judged to be human rights violations.

Read more: Asylum seekers in charts and numbers

Inside the European Court of Human Rights. File pic: AP
Image:
Inside the European Court of Human Rights. File pic: AP

How could the UK leave?

A country can leave the convention by formally denouncing it, but it would likely have to also leave the Council of Europe as the two are dependent on each other.

At the international level, a state must formally notify the Council of Europe of its intention to withdraw with six months’ notice, when the UK would still have to implement any ECtHR rulings and abide by ECHR laws.

The UK government would have to seek parliament’s approval before notifying the ECtHR, and would have to repeal the Human Rights Act 1998 – which would also require parliamentary approval.

Would the UK leaving breach any other agreements?

Leaving the ECHR would breach the 1998 Good Friday Agreement, a deal between the British and Irish governments on how Northern Ireland should be governed, which could threaten the peace settlement.

It would also put the UK’s relationship with the EU under pressure as the Brexit deal commits both to the ECHR.

The EU has said if the UK leaves the ECHR it would terminate part of the agreement, halting the extradition of criminal suspects from the EU to face trial in the UK.

Keir Starmer has previously ruled out taking Britain out of the ECHR
Image:
Keir Starmer has previously ruled out taking Britain out of the ECHR

How would the UK’s human rights protections change?

Certain rights under the ECHR are also recognised in British common law, but the ECHR has a more extensive protection of human rights.

For example, it was the ECHR that offered redress to victims of the Hillsborough disaster and the victims of “black cab rapist” John Worboys after state investigations failed.

Before cases were taken to the ECtHR and the Human Rights Act came into force, the common law did not prevent teachers from hitting children or protect gay people from being banned from serving in the armed forces.

Repealing the ECHR would also mean people in the UK would no longer be able to take their case to the ECtHR if the UK courts do not remedy a violation of their rights.

The UK’s human rights record would then not be subject to the same scrutiny as it is under the ECHR, where states review each other’s actions.

Two victims of John Worboys sued the Met Police for failing to effectively investigate his crimes using Article 3 of the ECHR. Pic: PA
Image:
Two victims of John Worboys sued the Met Police for failing to effectively investigate his crimes using Article 3 of the ECHR. Pic: PA

How human rights in the UK would be impacted depends partly on what would replace the Human Rights Act.

Mr Farage has said he would introduce a British Bill of Rights, which would apply only to UK citizens and lawful British citizens.

He has said it would not mention “human rights” but would include “the freedom to do everything, unless there’s a law that says you can’t” – which is how common law works.

Legal commentator Joshua Rozenberg said this would simply confirm the rights to which people are already entitled, but would also remove rights enjoyed by people visiting the UK.

Continue Reading

Trending