At the US House Financial Services Committee hearing examining the proposed regulations for digital assets brought forth in the 21st Century Financial Innovation & Technology (FIT) Act, division amongst members was paramount. What could have been one of the most groundbreaking legislations exclusively on digital asset tech, suddenly became ensnared in unrest amongst those who may support it and those who oppose it. FIT Act’s sponsor – Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-NC) leapt to the defence of the bill, depicting it as a means to protect investors and consumers alike – than those of existing regulatory controllers. Not all Democrats were in synchronised unity opposed to the FIT Act. One Representative – Ritchie Torres (D-NY) found the act to be increasingly important as, he commented, “It’s better to move forward with good legislation rather than wait for the ideal”. These sentiments would then ignite counter-accusations. Representitive Maxine Waters (D-CA) opposed Ritche’s attires with a retort of issues remaining upon this act – opining that it was nothing more than a “wish list” of cryptocurrency industry. Others in favour seemed undeterred by Waters’ assessment. Dr. Jack Solowey, from The Cato Institute, a D.C.-based libertarian think tank, opined that recognition of the protections the bill provides takes precedence, and that ignoring it would be “remarkably short-sighted”. As discussed, the FIT Act gradually worsened once inquiry began as to the significance of customer protection – and the collapse of the cryptocurrency exchange. Despite the turbulence left surrounding this proposal; it appears many understand the consequential impacts of its initiator – hence the legislation is legislating stage for further voting. Cantered around the Republicans in control of the house majority, the Financial Innovation & Technology (FIT) Act foreseeable path stands a chance as decision day approaches.
