Cardano (ADA) founder Charles Hoskinson recently addressed the new provision in the bipartisan bill that proposes stricter tax regulation on crypto transactions, intended to contribute to the historic infrastructure funding.

Following his prompt reaction on Twitter, where he addressed the seriousness of the new provision, in his most recent live stream, Hoskinson pointed out the major ramifications of the proposal and advised what can be done in the face of the Senate bill.

Attack on the industry 

The crypto community is opposing modifications to the plan’s crypto provision, which enhances taxation on crypto transactions and introduces additional reporting requirements for “crypto brokers.“ 

Hoskinson, who already warned that the new provision will be “terrible for crypto,” urged the crypto community to let their representatives know their stance:

“The best we can accomplish is write your congressman, write your senators and let it be known that you’re not happy about this and educate others and longer-term we need to support political candidates who are blatantly against this. I maintain my position that the only way we’re going to get out of this longer-term is by a constitutional convention.”

Crypto broker 

The proposal has received major criticism from the crypto community as one of the legal experts, Jake Chervinsky, deciphered and discussed a new provision that has been added, which expands the definition of a “broker” in the tax code, “to capture nearly everyone in crypto, including non-custodial actors like miners, forcing them all to KYC users.”

“If something like an infrastructure bill can be used so dramatically to change the face of our entire industry and the compliance requirements, then we have to understand that this is the first of many salvos that are coming our way, so it’s incredibly important that we attach political consequences to attacks on our industry,” said Hoskinson. 

The “misguided” provision has the potential to do more harm than good to US interests, according to Chervinsky, who argued that “it defies logic to adopt a regulation for which compliance is literally impossible unless the goal is to kill the industry.”