New US ‘Digital Taxonomy’ Bill to Allocate $25 Million Annually to Prevent Crypto Crime
The new U.S. bill from Rep. Darren Soto offers to allocate $25 million to the FTC from 2020 to 2024 to prevent crypto crimes.
The so-called Digital Taxonomy Act of 2019, which United States legislators introduced yesterday, April 9, offers to allocate the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) $25 million annually to prevent crypto-related crime.
The document was introduced to the U.S. House of Representatives by Rep. Darren Soto (D), who is known for his pro-crypto stance. The act is dedicated to the FTC’s role in preventing “unfair or deceptive acts or practices in transactions relating to digital tokens.” It also requires a report to congress on the FTC’s actions related to digital tokens.
According to the current draft of the Digital Taxonomy Act, the FTC should be granted $25 million in funding each year from 2020 to 2024. The commission will use the money to prevent and combat crypto-related crimes.
Moreover, the document gives brief definitions of core crypto terms, such as a token, distributed ledger and digital unit.
If the bill is adopted, the FTC will be obliged to present an annual report on its crypto-related regulatory actions to the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate.
As Cointelegraph reported yesterday, another bill, dubbed the Token Taxonomy Act of 2019, was reintroduced to the House of Representatives the same day.
The document, initially proposed last December by Reps. Warren Davidson (R) and as well as Rep. Soto, sought to exclude digital currencies from being defined as securities by amending the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Act of 1934. Its new version clarifies the jurisdiction of both the FTC and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
The bill also calls for more regulatory certainty for businesses and regulators in the U.S. blockchain industry, along with clarifying conflicting state initiatives and regulatory rulings that have confused the issue.