There literally are none. I would if I could think of a single argument against this. The closest is (1) self-sabateurs hoping for the BITCOIN BVLL to hit $1 million, and (2) bankers whose argument is actually "we will kill your entire family if you try to regulate us in any way", which is not something you can really argue against.
So, I haven't followed this issue much at all, outside of seeing headlines, so keep that in mind, altho I know a great deal about finance. I'd also have to fully read what you wrote again (and that isn't happening today). I'll give 2 counter-points...
- You blur two factors: they act like monopolies and have the power of public utilities. But just because they're monopolies doesn't make them public utilities. They aren't and that's a big jump. This would alter the way private companies are viewed and handled within the US.
- Risk assessment is an industry and discipline unto itself and has legit reasons for not serving everyone. There's greater fraud in certain areas, more liability, reputational risk, etc, and this would certainly impact that industry and how risk is assessed throughout the financial system, leading to unintended consequences.
Again, these are nitpicks and I'm just some fuck on the internet, so you know.
On 2, I'd explore what those unintended consequences might be and dismiss them (and maybe the bill words it in such a way to narrow in on what you're hoping to achieve, but politicians wrote it... so I'd be willing to bet no one did that because they never do).
On 1, maybe make the case stronger, but briefly, that monopoly behavior does functionally behave like a public utility. Since something like 2 companies own all the infrastructure, key term there, people have no real alts.
Or tell me to fuck off. It's good.
