The state of South Dakota has introduced a new bill to redefine the concept of money, particularly concerning cryptocurrencies.
South Dakota’s proposed bill could affect cryptocurrency regulation
The new bill titled “An Act to amend provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code” has been introduced. It proposes that digital currencies like bitcoin (BTC) should not be considered money since a government does not issue them.
If passed, the proposal could have significant implications for regulating cryptocurrencies in the state and potentially set a precedent for other states to follow.
The proposed amendment will only recognize a medium of exchange as money if it has been “authorized or adopted” by a government. It means cryptocurrencies would not meet the definition of money under the proposed legislation.
South Dakota’s move to redefine the concept of money concerning digital currencies is significant, as it could have far-reaching implications for regulating cryptocurrencies in the state. Whether other states will follow South Dakota’s lead in attempting to redefine the definition of money in this way remains to be seen.
Concerns over the proposed bill’s impact on bitcoin and CBDCs
Dennis Porter, the founder of Satoshi Fund, an organization focused on educating lawmakers and regulators about bitcoin, commented on the bill, stating that its passage could pave the way for creating a central bank digital currency (CBDC).
According to a tweet posted on March 2, Dennis Porter expressed his concern about the bill, stating that the worst part about it is that it’s being proposed in 21 states across the U.S. The move indicates a potential effort to establish a network of states that support CBDCs while excluding digital assets like bitcoin from being classified as money.
Similarly, Andy Roth, the President of the State Freedom Caucus Network, warned that the bill could set a precedent for the disallowance of bitcoin in transactions.
Lawmakers across the United States are grappling with how to regulate digital currencies, leading to several attempts, including South Dakota’s move, to introduce a regulatory framework.
CBDCs have been suggested to curb the influence of private digital assets, but critics argue that they are a ploy for the government to surveil citizens.
