Sign up FAST! Login

Bitcoin Foundation Response to California DFI


Stashed in: California, Bitcoin

To save this post, select a stash from drop-down menu or type in a new one:

Useful response by Bitcoin Foundation regarding CA Money Transmission Act

Well, at least they're in a dialogue now:

“The California state DFI said this was an invitation to talk. I’ve received nicer invitations, but we took it then as an opportunity to engage in a discussion about what we think the issues are and how we think the law agrees,” Patrick Murck of the Bitcoin Foundation told CoinDesk.

The primary points raised in the response letter are that the foundation doesn’t sell bitcoins nor operates in California, so it is not under the jurisdiction of the DFI.

“Even if we did operate an exchange or sell bitcoins, we have never done it with anyone in California, so they have no jurisdictional basis for coming and looking at us in the first place,” said Murck.

The response letter goes further than addressing these main issues. It also goes into detail as to why, under Californian law, bitcoin isn’t a payment instrument and explains that the foundation doesn’t sell or issue “stored value” and does not receive money for transmission.

Murck said the foundation decided to go into this detail so businesses in the space can see clearly what constitutes money transfer and what doesn’t.

“We believe that the direct sale of bitcoins in the state of California does not constitute money transmission, and that’s an important point, because there are a lot of businesses sitting on the side-lines because they’re scared that just by selling bitcoins, they would become money transferrers,” he explained.

Source: http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-foundation-issues-response-to-cease-and-desist-warning/

Regulation means the Bitcoin gold rush will not happen in the U.S., say experts:

http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/02/regulation-means-the-bitcoin-gold-rush-will-not-happen-in-the-us-say-experts/

I'd say that's pretty accurate.  The US regulation will hinder US adoption.  It's a barrier to startups, but not to large companies, so it's suited to companies growing in an international market and then moving into the US when they can afford to deal with the regulations, or more importantly, regulatory uncertainty. 

International is why Venture Capitalists are still very interested in Bitcoin:

http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/02/vcs-and-bitcoins/

In the U.S., if the Winklevoss Tracking Stock Trust gets approved by the SEC, I guess Americans can play along indirectly by buying shares of that. Though I would never advocate a person do so.

You May Also Like: