New York’s proposed BitLicence is controversial, to say the least. And many people are taking it more seriously because they see it as a possible model on which other jurisdictions could build their own regulations.
And while the BitLicence could have far-reaching ramifications, not every jurisdiction is interested in regulating Bitcoin in such a heavy-handed approach as New York is taking.
Case in point: North Carolina.
The North Carolina Commission of Banks (NCCOB), the state’s primary financial regulatory body, is working on its own framework for virtual currency regulation.
Rather than requiring a licence, though, they are treating virtual currency (a term seemingly only ever used by government bodies) as “monetary value” under North Carolina’s Money Transmitters Act.
Under those laws, any entity who takes part in monetary transmission needs to hold a state-issued licence to do so, and must keep their net worth higher than six figures.
Though the NCCOB said they would examine the requirements of a potential licencee on a case-by-case basis, they would at least be required to file a licence application in the same way any money transfer business would.
The new framework they’re proposing, though, is focused more on clarifying existing laws than introducing new ones.
North Carolina’s Bitcoin Ecosystem
This seems to echo the opinions of many Bitcoiners, who believe that while money laundering and fraud in the money transmission business are real threats, the existing protective framework is enough to protect consumers.
This news will certainly be welcome to North Carolina’s Bitcoin community. Coming off the success of the recent Cryptolina conference, things are looking up for the community.
Jurisdictions are lining up on both sides of the argument, with some banning Bitcoin altogether and others taking a more laid back approach. Which side will win in the end?
North Carolina: The Anti-BitLicence?
No comments:
Post a Comment