Share article

Bitcoin$62,482.20 advocacy groups are pushing back against the latest draft of the US Digital Asset PARITY Act, arguing it gives tax relief to proof-of-stake networks while leaving Bitcoin miners with the same old headache: taxable income on newly created coins before those coins are sold. [1]
The row centres on a discussion draft circulated by Representatives Max Miller and Steven Horsford. The bill is meant to modernise digital asset tax rules, but early reaction from Bitcoin-focused policy outfits suggests it may have opened a fresh fault line instead. [2]

Enjoy articles without ads?

Register for free and get unlimited access to all articles.

Why miners are objecting

The main complaint is structural. Under the draft, rewards from producing digital assets would be treated as gross income at fair market value when received. For validators on proof-of-stake chains such as Ethereum$1,686.33 or Solana$79.10, the proposal reportedly allows tax to be deferred until the asset is actually sold. [3]

Bitcoin miners, however, do not appear to get the same treatment. [4]

That matters because Bitcoin$62,482.20's proof-of-work model comes with heavy upfront and ongoing costs, namely ASIC hardware, hosting and power. Taxing block rewards on receipt, rather than on sale, can create what critics call a phantom income problem: a miner may owe tax based on the coin's market value without having sold anything to generate the cash needed to pay it.
Bitmain Review Faces Warren Security Push
The Bitcoin Policy Institute has been among the most vocal critics. Its argument is simple enough: if lawmakers agree digital asset creation should not trigger an immediate tax bill, that relief should apply across consensus models rather than favouring staking over mining. [5]

A two-tier regime argument

Conner Brown, managing director at the Bitcoin Policy Institute, said the draft effectively preserves double taxation pressure on Bitcoin mining while carving out a more favourable lane for staking operations. The institute has framed that as a policy choice that picks winners and losers rather than setting neutral tax rules. [6]

That is the political sting in this debate. The PARITY Act is pitched as a clean-up exercise for digital asset taxation, but critics from the Bitcoin side say it does the opposite if one part of the market gets deferral and another does not.

There is also a practical point here. Mining businesses tend to operate on tighter cash flow than the average CT thread would admit. Revenue is volatile, margins swing with hashprice, and many operators already sell part of their treasury to cover energy and debt costs. If the tax code forces immediate recognition without deferral, smaller or less efficient miners could feel the squeeze fastest.

Bitcoin payments may also lose out

The draft has drawn criticism beyond mining.

Another flashpoint is its treatment of small payments. The bill would reportedly make it easier to use certain payment stablecoins, as defined under the GENIUS Act framework, in everyday transactions. Bitcoin advocates argue that if stablecoin payments get cleaner tax handling while Bitcoin spending does not, the result is another uneven outcome. [7]
Coinbase Tops Strategy in Bitcoin Holdings

That would be awkward for a bill branded around parity. If consumers can more easily spend dollar-pegged tokens for routine purchases, but still face friction using BTC in similar scenarios, Bitcoin's role as a payment asset gets comparatively weaker under the same legislation.

For Bitcoin-first groups, this is not just a miner issue. It is a broader complaint that the draft supports some digital asset use cases while sidelining others.

What happens next

At this stage, the PARITY Act is still a draft, which means the objections are arriving early enough to matter. Lobbying groups are now pressing lawmakers to revise the language so tax deferral applies consistently and everyday Bitcoin transactions are not treated less favourably than stablecoin payments.

Whether Congress is willing to redraw those lines is the real question. The US has spent years producing tax ambiguity for crypto, and any bipartisan attempt to fix that was always likely to expose internal industry divides. This one has done so immediately. [8]

Bitcoin and Google's 2029 Quantum Deadline

Risk box

The opposition case weakens if a revised draft extends deferral to proof-of-work mining and aligns treatment of Bitcoin payments with stablecoin transactions. If lawmakers leave the current structure intact, expect this to turn into a proper intra-industry fight over whether US crypto tax reform is neutral policy or selective relief dressed up as parity.

People Referenced

Max Miller

U.S. Representative Max Miller (R-OH) co-sponsored the PARITY Act discussion draft to provide clearer, consumer-friendly digital asset tax rules.

Steven Horsford

Steven Horsford is a U.S. Representative from Nevada involved in drafting bipartisan crypto tax legislation, including the PARITY Act proposal.

Conner Brown

Conner Brown is a Washington-based legal and policy leader at the Bitcoin Policy Institute, focused on strategy for crypto regulation.

Companies Referenced

Bitcoin Policy Institute logo

Bitcoin Policy Institute

Tags

#Bitcoin#US regulation#crypto tax#Bitcoin Mining#proof-of-stake#proof-of-work#PARITY Act#Bitcoin Policy Institute