California Shrugs: Bill AB-1326 to Introduce It's Own BitLicense
A new initiative has started to battle yet another BitLicense. The California version of the license to operate or engage in business with the virtual currency. Bill AB -1326 will require participants to pay the treasury $5,000 with application. The paperwork alongside this fee requires an extensive inquiry into the business applicants background. Taskforce and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) aim to fight this measure.
Also Read: Bitlicense Forces Major Bitcoin Businesses to Leave In Droves
“When questioned about what regulation can do to enhance economies in the writing “ Power and Market” Murray N. Rothbard says absolutely “nothing”
Taskforce who calls themselves the “activism at the intersection of technology and politics” thinks this license is completely unwarranted. So Taskforce and EFF started nobitcoinlicense.org to give residents easy access to contact their representatives.They want California residents to call their local senators now and petition against the new policy before it’s too late. They claim the California virtual currency license is being “ touted as model bill”, however, to them it’s not at all easy to understand. Working with the EFF the team of activists have deployed a website to make it easier for residents to call their senators. They say when you call just state:
“I’m a constituent. I’m asking the Senator to oppose AB 1326, the virtual currency license. It’s bad for innovation and consumers.” ~ EFF & Taskforce call in line
They say that the currency is not at a maturity level to be regulated yet. The group believes there is no need for it in this point in time and the clarity of this license is quite confusing. Because of this “passing it into law, would be a mistake,” stifling the early stages of Bitcoins infancy. If passed, the new groundwork will create havoc for young startups just trying to make it.
This bill was brought to the table by Matt Dababneh an associate of the Chairman of the Banking and Finance Committee. The organization Change.org has also been against the license, also introducing a petition to have the bill withdrawn. They say in the end the consumers will be harmed due to the lack of operations. Small scaled startups will be hindered by its fee to operate with those that can afford it. Change.org also agrees with the EFF that the policies are confusing most notably the business classification. So even after reading the proposal no one really knows what they must comply or classify with and if you fail that 5,000 is non refundable.
When questioned about what regulation can do to enhance economies in the writing “ Power and Market” Murray N. Rothbard says absolutely “nothing”. Most of the work in Rothbard’s piece refers to government action benefiting a small group at the expense of a larger group. Giving ill effects to the enterprises at large in free markets and stifling innovation until it ceases. The Californian license acts as the tools to inflict regulatory policy, such as tariffs, subsidies, occupational licensure in the digital currency environment. Many from the community feel regulations on the longest worldwide ledger is just a futile attempt at more state revenue and leaching like a parasite. The ledger itself is said to have the properties of self regulating consensus.
The law is supposed to offer consumer protection in the crypto space. However, these groups of activists want you to know that the bill is “deeply flawed”. They believe the protection is not valid and actually invades the privacy of businesses and its users just as the New York license. Applicants must give vast amounts of data to the commissioner’s office, which many call to overbearing. In New York the License caused Erik Voorhees to initiate “Please Protect Consumers” having companies join forces to boycott mass data collection. In the state of NY many companies left the region in exodus to show they could not comply with the regulations and tariff.
“Having different regulations for cryptocurrencies in every state will create confusion for consumers.” — EFF
Will startups and businesses who were solidified in the market already stick around for this law? Even before the New York policies came into effect in the state services left weeks prior to the August 8th due date. The activists at the EFF, Taskforce and Change.org don’t want to find out before its too late. They say that AB 1326 is “technically inaccurate”, confusing and needs to be stopped. They fear that these new measures will create a strong exit in the state where Silicon Valley resides and it will hurt the adoption of cryptocurrency in general.
You can access nobitcoinlicense.org here
What do you think of licensing and regulation? Let us know in the comments below.
Images courtesy of Shutterstock, Pixbay, Nobitcoinlicense.org, change.org, and Redmemes