Everything in the article leads me to believe this only threatens the “cryptocurrency” industry, but I don’t have the actual text to the amendment. Is anything threatening “crypto” itself?
The term “derivatives” is widely used for financial derivatives like options and swaps. It’s gained such widespread adoption that it by far dwarfs the original meaning of the instantaneous rate of change in calculus.
I think the simpler answer is that when a word has two meanings, one a widely used category of financial instruments and the other a narrowly defined branch of advanced mathematics, the former will almost always dominate everyday discussion.
Cryptography is more widely used than cryptocurrency. That people don't understand they're using it doesn't change the fact that "threatens the cryptography industry" is more scary than "threatens the cryptocurrency industry" especially since cryptocurrency relies on cryptography so it would be directly threatened as a consequence.
>that it by far dwarfs the original meaning of the instantaneous rate of change in calculus.
That's not even the original meaning. According to etymology section on wiktionary, it dates back to middle french and latin, before issac newton was even born.
Seconded.
I also hate that they shorten proof-of-work algorithm to "algo" (often just referring to the hash function used in the widely used Hashcash PoW).
The prefix "crypto" means hidden or disguised in English. Neither cryptocurrency nor cryptography have a monopoly on it. The way people get exercised about this issue you'd think that "cryptography" is the only word in the English language to use the prefix "crypto-".
The thing is that cryptocurrency is really a niche application of cryptography, where cryptography is very broadly used. So it's a little like if people started using "petroleum" to mean petroleum jelly. Sure, nobody is aware of cryptography's effect on their life. But it is a key ingredient in everything including cryptocurrency.
>the following categories do not count as brokers:
>(A) validating distributed ledger transactions
>(B) selling hardware or software for which the sole function is to permit a person to control private keys which are used for accessing digital assets on a distributed ledger, or
>(C) developing digital assets or their cor- responding protocols for use by other persons, provided that such other persons are not cus- tomers of the person developing such assets or protocols.
That's Wyden's amendment to this amendment. The amendment in question here is saying that a "broker" now includes anyone
> responsible for and regularly providing any service effectuating transfers of digital assets
(incidentally, I don't see how category (B) or even category (C) from Wyden's amendment could be reasonable construed as being included in the original text--those are products not services. I will concede that I can see how category (A) can be construed, although I doubt it would be so construed).
[Also note that "digital assets" is defined elsewhere in the amendment, although the news media didn't report on the precise text for digital asset, so I don't have it handy. But it's basically a reasonable definition.]