Two US lawmakers introduced a bill to support El Salvador’s Bitcoin law with some necessary restrictions.
Last year El Salvador became the first country in the world, which adopted Bitcoin as a currency alongside the use of the US dollar. However, the country’s government faced criticism for this law from local opposition politicians and also from foreign countries’ agencies but in the end El Salvador introduced the Bitcoin law legally on 7 September.
In February of this year, US lawmakers planned to propose some necessary rules and regulations to prohibit the risks associated with the Bitcoin law of El Salvador, so that the country remains away from any risk because of Bitcoin use in the form of currency.
By following the prior same plan, Two US lawmakers Norma Torres (D-Calif.) and Rick Crawford (R-Ark) introduced a bill to “mitigate the risks to the United States of El Salvador’s adoption of Bitcoin as legal currency”.
This bill aimed to introduce legislation for the Accountability for Cryptocurrency in El Salvador (ACES) Act.
In the press release, Republican Senator Torres said many financial institutions studied the Bitcoin law Act of El Salvador and also pointed out some critical risks associated with it.
“Global financial institutions have studied and detailed the numerous risks of El Salvador’s adoption of Bitcoin, and the international community acknowledges the potential danger.”
In February, El Salvador president Nayib Bukele responded against this proposed idea of interfering in El Salvador’s Bitcoin law by US lawmakers and said that El Salvador is an independent country and no one country has the right to interfere in its constitutions.
In the latest statement, Senator Torres acknowledged the past response of El Salvador’s president and said that he respects El Salvador as an independent country but here it is duty of US to save the country from any possible risks related to the financial system.
“(The) the United States must have a plan in place to protect our financial systems from the risks of this decision, which appears to be a careless gamble rather than a thoughtful embrace of innovation.”