Policy Impact Analysis - 117/HR/8545

Bill Overview

Title: To establish a blockchain and cryptocurrency position within the Office of Science and Technology Policy, and for other purposes.

Description: This bill directs the Office of Science and Technology Policy to establish or designate a blockchain and cryptocurrencies advisory specialist position within the office to coordinate federal activities and advise the President on matters of research and development related to blockchain, cryptocurrencies, and distributed ledger technologies.

Sponsors: Rep. Soto, Darren [D-FL-9]

Target Audience

Population: People involved in blockchain and cryptocurrency activities

Estimated Size: 27000000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Blockchain Developer (San Francisco, CA)

Age: 34 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I believe having a centralized advisory specialist could help streamline regulatory issues.
  • This could encourage more consistency and potentially attract more investment.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 7
Year 2 8 7
Year 3 8 7
Year 5 8 6
Year 10 8 6
Year 20 7 6

Cryptocurrency Trader (New York, NY)

Age: 29 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 2.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy may increase transparency but I fear overregulation.
  • I would feel more secure if there's a unified federal perspective.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 6
Year 2 6 5
Year 3 6 5
Year 5 6 5
Year 10 5 5
Year 20 4 4

Policy Analyst (Washington, D.C.)

Age: 45 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Creating a specialist position is forward-looking.
  • We need alignment on tech policy that could spur more research funding.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 7
Year 2 8 7
Year 3 9 7
Year 5 9 7
Year 10 9 7
Year 20 8 7

College Student (Austin, TX)

Age: 22 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I see this as a positive step for future job stability in blockchain.
  • It indicates the government's interest in supporting this tech area.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 5
Year 2 6 5
Year 3 6 5
Year 5 7 5
Year 10 7 5
Year 20 7 5

Tech Entrepreneur (Seattle, WA)

Age: 38 | Gender: other

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The policy could help advance tech development standards.
  • Execution is key, as missteps could squander government resources.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 8
Year 2 9 7
Year 3 9 7
Year 5 10 7
Year 10 10 7
Year 20 9 6

Investor (Chicago, IL)

Age: 50 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 7/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • A cohesive policy stance could stabilize the market.
  • I am cautiously optimistic about the potential impacts.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 6
Year 2 8 6
Year 3 8 6
Year 5 9 6
Year 10 8 6
Year 20 7 5

Blockchain Architect (Miami, FL)

Age: 31 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This is a step toward greater institutional acceptance of blockchain.
  • I'm hopeful it will address industry challenges and foster growth.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 7
Year 2 8 6
Year 3 9 6
Year 5 9 6
Year 10 9 6
Year 20 8 5

Cryptocurrency Miner (Denver, CO)

Age: 27 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 3.0 years

Commonness: 9/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I'm concerned about potential increased regulation affecting my operations.
  • However, a specialist might help clarify rules.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 6
Year 2 6 5
Year 3 5 5
Year 5 5 5
Year 10 5 4
Year 20 4 4

Financial Advisor (Boston, MA)

Age: 40 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 7.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • How the policy is implemented will determine its market impact.
  • Education and clear communication from the government would be helpful.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 6
Year 2 7 6
Year 3 7 6
Year 5 7 6
Year 10 8 5
Year 20 8 5

Remote Worker (Rural Kentucky)

Age: 36 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 0.0 years

Commonness: 12/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy may not impact me directly as I'm not deeply engaged in the sector.
  • I hope it doesn't lead to policies that make it harder for small investors.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 5 5
Year 2 5 5
Year 3 5 5
Year 5 5 5
Year 10 5 5
Year 20 5 5

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $250000 (Low: $200000, High: $300000)

Year 2: $255000 (Low: $205000, High: $310000)

Year 3: $260000 (Low: $210000, High: $320000)

Year 5: $270000 (Low: $220000, High: $340000)

Year 10: $290000 (Low: $250000, High: $370000)

Year 100: $500000 (Low: $400000, High: $600000)

Key Considerations