Isn’t saying that the leading market structure bills could prohibit people from using non-custodial wallets a bit misleading since the Clarity Act now includes section 110, which guarantees the right to self-custody? Is that section somehow in greater jeopardy than the entire bill? My concern is that this messaging will lead people to oppose the Clarity Act, which in its present form DOES protect self-custody. Or am I missing something here?
!!!
The leading market structure bills moving through Congress could leave US persons prohibited from utilizing non-custodial wallets and service providers.
That would mean no self-custody, no privacy, no freedom.
US Americans please call your representatives and tell them to
support section 110 of the Clarity Act.
nostr:npub185h9z5yxn8uc7retm0n6gkm88358lejzparxms5kmy9epr236k2qcswrdp discussed this on nostr:npub1r8l06leee9kjlam0slmky7h8j9zme9ca32erypgqtyu6t2gnhshs3jx5dk and What Bitcoin Did.
Discussion
As it currently exists it’s great, but it’s also entirely possible that it gets amended either on the floor of the house or in the senate (assuming it makes it that far).