Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D‑NY) announced on Monday that he now seeks to pass the infrastructure bill before the end of October. This development is positive given that there are many harmful provisions that Congress should fix. Yet, despite the longer timeline, Congress has shown little interest in amending either the broker provision or the digital asset surveillance provision. As Congress moves toward the October 31 deadline, they should reverse course on these provisions before they radically alter this nascent industry.

The first item, commonly referred to as the “broker provision,” amends Section 6045(c)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC). In Section 80603 of the infrastructure bill, the term “broker” is redefined as including “any person who (for consideration) is responsible for regularly providing any service effectuating transfers of digital assets on behalf of another person” (see page 2,419). It then requires said brokers to report gross proceeds and personal information of any and all parties involved in transfers. Yet, such a task is impossible for many of the people who use blockchain technologies, and it does so all for the sake of what is largely already publicly available.

By mandating, for example, miners to collect information that they can’t possibly collect, Congress is setting a de facto ban on cryptocurrency mining in the United States. Worse yet, the information they do have is all publicly available on the blockchain. It would be far more efficient for the government to look at the blockchain themselves––like many law enforcement agencies already have––than require countless individuals to report transaction after transaction. One may make the case that miners should pay taxes on their income, but that case is wholly different from the case to uphold them to an impossible standard of surveillance.

Numerous amendments, some better and some worse, were offered to fix the broker provision, but the bill was ultimately unchanged when the Senate sent it to the House.

Unfortunately, the second item did not receive the same initial attention. It was not until Abe Sutherland, of the Proof of Stake Alliance, published a research report that it became clear that the digital asset surveillance provision (amending Section 6050I(d) of the IRC) within Section 80603 of the infrastructure bill was just as bad, if not worse, for cryptocurrencies.

As it stands, Section 6050I(d) of the IRC requires business transactions of $10,000 or more in cash to be reported to the government. These reports must include the name, address, and taxpayer identification number (i.e., social security number) of the payer. However, the infrastructure bill expands that requirement to include not just cash, but digital assets. This requirement is something that should be challenged and repealed, not “legitimized” through modernization. More so, it makes little sense to apply rules for cash on cryptocurrencies when one stops to observe that the record of their transfer is publicly available on the blockchain.

In his letter announcing the new timeline for the infrastructure bill, Senator Schumer wrote, “[At] the end of the day, we will pass legislation that will dramatically improve the lives of the American people.” If Congress wishes to keep these words true, they should amend the provisions affecting sections 6045 and 6050I of the IRC before they dramatically worsen the lives of the American people in the cryptocurrency industry.