Reading the bills, they are not banning anything. Just changing the reporting requirements. Doesn’t POS supporters want government oversight of the pseudo-decentralised actors required in POS?
Government oversight isn't required at all or even desired in most cases.
Proof of Stake relies almost entirely on the internal game theory of the system and while external influence (such as some level of proof of authority via gov oversight or hybrid PoS/PoW) can be used as a crutch, they open the system up to a new set of vulnerabilities.
Additionally, while the bills are "just" changing the reporting requirements, those new requirements are incredibly vague and whether read in a narrow or a wide sense they impose such a significant reporting requirement that it would be anywhere from very difficult for an individual on their own to legitimately impossible even with unlimited funding and manpower. The reporting requirements would effectively impose KYC reporting on any validator (including full nodes) or software developer involved in a cryptocurrency ecosystem for all users of the ecosystem. This effectively prevents US validators or SW devs from even participating in the ecosystem outside of creating a completely siloed "US only" cryptocurrency ecosystem.
The originally proposed wording is bad, the Warner amendment is worse. The Wyden-Lummis-Toomey amendment is a reasonable compromise that provides some capacity for tax compliance oversight without burdening the entire ecosystem with reporting requirements that are mutually incompatible with 99% of networks.
This is not a problem for the network, its a problem for americans or residents in america that wish to perform this duty safe from state prosecution or punishment.
