An amendment addressing criticism of the Senate infrastructure bill's proposed cryptocurrency regulations was blocked from proceeding to a vote on Monday.

The text of the Senate's infrastructure bill was revealed last week, coming as the result of lengthy bipartisan negotiations. The bill was a slimmed-down slate of proposals initially proposed by democratic lawmakers but came with the still considerable price tag of $1 trillion. However, the bill was a vaguely worded proposal that would require cryptocurrency brokers to comply with new information disclosure requirements.

The highly controversial proposal was addressed by a bipartisan effort between various senators, which would have reigned in the broad definition of "broker" that critics took issue with.

"We've worked with the Treasury Department to clarify the underlying text and ensure that those who are not acting as brokers will not be subject to the bill's reporting requirements," the senators said in an issued statement. "While we each would have drafted this solution differently, we all agree it's important to ensure that these obligations are properly crafted to apply only to entities that are regularly effectuating transactions of digital assets in exchange for consideration."

The blockage of the bill comes as a result of a breakdown in support, with GOP Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama withdrawing his vote after an unrelated amendment regarding additional military funding was blocked from the bill by Independent Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders.

With the amendment dead in the water, and the infrastructure bill still proceeding towards its impending vote, there doesn't appear to be any clear indication of whether or not a second compromise may be reached.

Understandably, this has left many cryptocurrency traders feeling anxious. Given the current broad definition of "broker," any number of entities that conduct business with cryptocurrency could feasibly be considered a broker, subjecting them to information disclosure requirements intended to collect "missed" tax revenue. As of yet, there has been little evidence to suggest that said disclosures would provide any tax income.