California is set to follow New York’s lead, but the Bitcoin Foundation wants to stop the state from getting its own version of the BitLicense.
The California Bitcoin License bill designated as AB1326 has undergone several changes in the assembly and senate since it was first introduced last year. It is now awaiting a second reading by Senate.
Opponents of the bill, however, claim that the language of it has the potential to reduce California’s capability of supporting digital currency startups in the state.
Bitcoin Foundation Education Committee chair Colin Gallagher is one opponent who has called on people to sign a petition opposing the bill after writing on a forum today stating that the new version of the bill is ‘even worse than before.’
On the petition’s page it states:
Unfortunately, the bill’s language is so vague that it’s unclear what companies even count as “virtual currency businesses.
If AB1326 is signed into law, companies that handle bitcoin may find themselves subject to dealing with extensive paperwork and legislative hurdles.
As a relatively new digital currency bitcoin and blockchain have the ability to challenge the authority of government and conformist financial systems.
They can also be used in terrorist financing and money laundering, factors which have driven governments to introduce regulations that are aimed at controlling the digital currency.
Of course, with these controls, businesses that deal with bitcoin are finding themselves exposed to more red tape, which is where the New York BitLicense and the proposed California Bitcoin License come into play.
Despite the fact that these laws may be attempting to do good for the wider public, they should take into account the fact that bitcoin needs to be further explored and developed. If bitcoin is to continue being scrutinized, bitcoin startups are likely to reach a stymie as they look elsewhere to start their bitcoin companies.
Featured image from Shutterstock.
Last modified: August 9, 2016 23:53 UTC