By George Ward
The United States legislative body has demanded transparency in crypto and other financial transactions from its state counterparts. Accordingly, lawmakers will amend the proposal under the State Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956.
In the proposed amendment under the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the State Department must disclose its crypto payments and rewards over a time frame of 15 days, beginning from the transaction date.
It is pertinent to note that the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) is a collation of federal laws enacted to establish annual budgets and expenditures for the US Department of Defense. Thus, the state department must keep interested parties updated on relevant information.
In addition, during the specified 15 days of disclosure, the State Department must justify using crypto as a reward. Then, it will present a report to the committee on foreign affairs of the house of representatives and the committee on foreign relations of the senate within 180 days of enacting the act.
Furthermore, the report will provide evidence that there aren’t any illegal transactions with crypto rewards and payouts. This would bring all hidden agendas to the light of the law compared to payment transactions done using the US dollar or other fiat payment methods.
Mitigating Illicit Transactions And Aiding Transparency
The purpose of enacting the proposal is to promote transparency in all transactions and ensure safety from contentious individuals. Accordingly, regulators would conduct more investigations to ascertain if digital currencies would promote malicious activities or give criminals an edge to perform more scams.
As outlined in the proposal, this would provide enhanced transparency as it would disclose State Department transactions regarding crypto rewards and payouts. In addition, once the amendment is done, the policy will provide more precise insights for the federal government on using cryptocurrencies for illicit purposes.
Nevertheless, an essential aspect of the act, which would increase defense spending, still needs to be addressed by the legislature and signed by the president for it to be enacted. In contrast, the NDAA is mandatory, and politicians often use it to formulate a wide range of policies.