New York Tries to Regulate Bitcoin Businesses Right Out of the State
As Wired reports today, in an attempt to be proactively intelligent on managing the risks of the exciting new business world of cryptocurrencies or whatever other nonsense regulators think about what they are doing, regulations are proposed that would kill nearly all valuable about Bitcoin and likely drive all such businesses away from New York:
The guidelines ask bitcoin businesses to keep track not only of the physical addresses of their customers, but also of anybody who sends their customers money using the bitcoin network. That undermines the fundamental value proposition of bitcoin, which works very much like the internet's version of cash. But there's more. Bitcoin businesses must also file frequent reports to Lawsky's organization, the New York State Department of Financial Services, or DFS, to detail changes in ownership, financial forecasts, even strategic business plans.
If adopted, these requirements will make things very tough for bitcoin startups, who have limited resources and are scrambling to invent whole new types of businesses….
Another big problem is that the regulations appear to cover a whole new class of bitcoin businesses that are not presently subject to federal regulation. These include online wallet companies like Blockchain and BitGo, and maybe even bitcoin tipping apps. That's "ridiculous," according to Patrick Muck, general counsel for the Bitcoin Foundation. "Really the scope of this thing ropes in the whole industry," he says. "This proposal would set New York up as a quasi-federal regulator for the entire bitcoin industry."….
Roger Ver, a libertarian who and serial bitcoin business investor, believes that—if adopted— the rules will drive bitcoin businesses out of New York. "These men calling themselves government are not asking anybody to do anything. They are making demands, and will put us behind bars if we don't obey," he says. "Bitcoin was specifically designed to strip away power from men who would be so presumptuous to believe that they have the right to rule over others."
I wrote last May about ways government would try to stymie, but could not ultimately halt, the largely decentralized international cryptocurrency.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
OT: According to Wikipedia, the most popular show in Senegal is an American Idol-like contest to find the most beautiful ram.
I have learned the following things:
1.) Senegalese French is easy for me to understand. I don't know why.
2.) Based on the name of the ram @21:33, the Senegalese must be racist as fuck.
That's kind of cool. Also I don't think it was meant as an insult.
It doesn't matter. The great thing about bitcoin is that you don't need it to be legal everywhere.
This will probably end up being about as effective as bans on internet gambling: it will still happen, but businesses that happen to be located where it's banned won't be making the money off of it.
Great idea, progtards.
Regulators are generally ineffective (by design) when trying to find manipulation of the gold or silver market or finding criminal wrong doing at the too big to fail banks.
But when something threatens the status quo like Bitcoin, they become super efficient; as predicted here: http://smaulgld.com/bitcoin-regulation-here-comes/
To be fair, New York is trying to regulate all economic activity out of the state. Why should Bitcoin be an exception?
Not all economic activity.
Just economic activity that competes against established players.
I am honestly surprised we have not seen another state set up more lenient financial regulations more amiable to start ups in direct competition to New York.
Huston maybe?
these requirements will make things very tough for bitcoin startups
Consequences of crony regulations are not unintended.
*hat tip to the Iron Laws*