#美众院推进比特币储备法案
78 Democrats voted to support legislation to regulate the crypto market. Now it’s time to put Bitcoin on the federal balance sheet—no votes in favor.
▪️ The House Financial Services Committee passed ARMA (H.R. 8957) by 28–21
▪️ All 28 “yes” votes were from Republicans; all 21 “no” votes were from Democrats
▪️ Of the 23 co-sponsors, 22 were Republicans; the only Democrat, Golden, isn’t on this committee
▪️ The same day, the fundraising committee passed a digital asset tax bill 38–5
The original bill had three funding sources: Federal Reserve surplus, a reassessment of Gold Certificates, and tariff revenue. Steil’s alternative slashed them all—changing reserve proof from quarterly to annual, and removing the website publication requirements as well. Narrowing the text is usually used to trade votes; this time the trade came back with 0 votes.
The Senate arithmetic is even more direct: to end debate requires 60 votes. With 53 Republican seats, they were all in—down 7 votes. No version matching that exists to date. In the House, even the last two weeks of the September session were canceled; this Congress adjourns in January 2027.
Watch three things: whether the full House schedules it, whether the Senate picks it up, and whether the session-ending resets—or whether it’s still brought up.
On BTC: This legislative line has very weak price transmission. The bill doesn’t authorize buying coins, doesn’t borrow money, and doesn’t raise taxes. The market treated it as a procedural step that day: BTC stalled around $76,000. The Fed raised rates for the first time since 2023, and in the two hours afterward BTC only moved 1.99%. What pressures the price is the disposition of confiscated coins—moving them into Coinbase Prime is essentially putting them on a sell channel. The key level is $72,000.
What do you think? Is this 0-vote outcome a stance issue, or a proposal posture issue?
78 Democrats voted to support legislation to regulate the crypto market. Now it’s time to put Bitcoin on the federal balance sheet—no votes in favor.
▪️ The House Financial Services Committee passed ARMA (H.R. 8957) by 28–21
▪️ All 28 “yes” votes were from Republicans; all 21 “no” votes were from Democrats
▪️ Of the 23 co-sponsors, 22 were Republicans; the only Democrat, Golden, isn’t on this committee
▪️ The same day, the fundraising committee passed a digital asset tax bill 38–5
The original bill had three funding sources: Federal Reserve surplus, a reassessment of Gold Certificates, and tariff revenue. Steil’s alternative slashed them all—changing reserve proof from quarterly to annual, and removing the website publication requirements as well. Narrowing the text is usually used to trade votes; this time the trade came back with 0 votes.
The Senate arithmetic is even more direct: to end debate requires 60 votes. With 53 Republican seats, they were all in—down 7 votes. No version matching that exists to date. In the House, even the last two weeks of the September session were canceled; this Congress adjourns in January 2027.
Watch three things: whether the full House schedules it, whether the Senate picks it up, and whether the session-ending resets—or whether it’s still brought up.
On BTC: This legislative line has very weak price transmission. The bill doesn’t authorize buying coins, doesn’t borrow money, and doesn’t raise taxes. The market treated it as a procedural step that day: BTC stalled around $76,000. The Fed raised rates for the first time since 2023, and in the two hours afterward BTC only moved 1.99%. What pressures the price is the disposition of confiscated coins—moving them into Coinbase Prime is essentially putting them on a sell channel. The key level is $72,000.
What do you think? Is this 0-vote outcome a stance issue, or a proposal posture issue?
