Yes

>>News

>>The US House overwhelmingly approved bipartisan legislation known as FIT21, which includes significant Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) warnings regarding crypto assets. The proposal received strong support from both sides of the aisle.

The US House overwhelmingly approved bipartisan legislation known as FIT21, which includes significant Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) warnings regarding crypto assets. The proposal received strong support from both sides of the aisle.

crypthub

1/24/2025, 11:52:32 AM

US House of Representatives Supports Centralized Cryptocurrency Regulation

The US House recently voted in favor of the Financial Innovation and Technology for the 21st Century Act (FIT21), a legislative proposal designed to streamline cryptocurrency oversight. This bipartisan decision, with a significant majority of 279 votes, marks a shift in regulatory focus towards digital currencies.

Shifting Regulatory Control and Classification of Digital Assets

The bill grants crypto operators enhanced freedoms while transferring the regulatory mandate for digital assets to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). This strategic move reclassifies digital assets as commodities, diverting oversight from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), a change aligning with President Biden's recent anti-crypto industry stance.

Potential Political Implications and Industry Support

The passage of FIT21 poses a political dilemma for President Biden, compelling him to choose between supporting his own SEC Chairman or overriding the legislation. Interestingly, former President Donald Trump has shown backing for the crypto sector during his 2024 campaign.

Post-Vote Reactions and Concerns

Following the vote, House Majority Whip Tom Emmer expressed optimism about the Act's potential to boost American innovation in digital assets while preserving decentralized technology values. However, both the White House and SEC had previously voiced reservations, with the former cautioning that FIT21 may not adequately protect consumers, and the latter claiming it could create regulatory gaps.