The crucial cryptocurrency amendment failed in the US Senate over a dispute on military spending and lost its path in achieving unanimous consent by elected officials.
Senators Rob Portman (R-OH), Cynthia Lummis (R-WY), Patrick Toomey (R-PA), Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ) had put forward dueling amendments to the crypto provision in the infrastructure bill.
However, Senators Richard Shelby (R-AL) and Bernie Sanders (D-VT) objected to the crypto amendment over a dispute on military spending and the amendment ultimately ended up being futile.
Capitol Hill reporter Jamie Dupree took to Twitter explaining how things went on the senate floor and tweeted: ''Two objections on the Senate floor have blocked the addition of a deal on cryptocurrency tax enforcement to a bipartisan infrastructure bill. First one was by Sanders. Second objection by Shelby, who wants his amendment added for $50 billion more in defense spending.''
However, crypto enthusiasts were enraged that senators failed to even debate the crypto amendments on the floor and took to Twitter claiming that big banks might have paid them 'fees' in order to keep the crypto market from being regulated.
Crypto investors have long said that banks are fearful that if the US government regulates cryptocurrencies, their dominance on the financial sector would come crashing down as people would put their finances on cryptos and not banks.
Top crypto influencer Matt Wallace took to Twitter questioning why senators failed to debate the crypto amendments and hinted that they might have received ''big money'' to refuse debating crypto on the senate floor.
''So many senators/government officials are paid BIG money by the banks for speaking fees. Hmmm... wonder why they refused to debate the crypto amendment?,'' he tweeted to his nearly 240,000 followers.
However, several investors jumped in the comments section saying banks can try all they want in stopping the upcoming crypto market boom, but they would eventually be replaced over time as the old will always make way for the new.
A user commented on Matt's tweet, ''They refused it because: 1. They are too ignorant on the subject and too old to comprehend new technology and shouldn't be allowed to have any say or ruling over such things they don't understand. 2. They are surrounded by people in fear of losing money (banks, etc) from crypto.''
