Bitcoin Forum

http://bitcoinmagazine.com/bitinstant-we-have-money-transmitter-licenses-in-30-states (http://bitcoinmagazine.com/bitinstant-we-have-money-transmitter-licenses-in-30-states)

I guess that's a good news :)

Fascinating piece. It's surprisingly upbeat, even while revealing details about the massive amount of red tape it requires to be "licensed" in the US.

"You can spend only a medium amount of money (in business terms; for a basement startup, it is still very much prohibitive) and get the licenses in several years, or you can spend more to get them faster. Tradehill currently has two lawyers per engineer hired to work on compliance issues."

From the article:


Umm...is it 2013, or is it still 1957 wherever this was written?

It is because the federal govt only has control over interstate commerce not intrastate commerce, it is buried somewhere in constitution ;)

Commerce clause and 10th amendment

of course its positive.  its written by Vitalik Buterin of Bitcoin Magazine which is not surprisingly pro Bitcoin.

Government has been relentlessly growing in size every decade.
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/GovernmentGrowth.html#lfHendersonCEE2-075_table_024

This bigger it gets the more petty bureaucrats need to feather their nests.This licencing is a glimpse into how desperate the situation has become.

So what does this imply that bitstant could not do before?

I mean they used third party intermediaries to get funds from your location to the exchange of your choosing.

Last time I checked, there were 50 states, not 48. 1957 was the last year we had 48 states; Alaska and Hawaii were admitted in 1958.

It's like you didn't even read qhat you quoted...

Would you like a lawyer to go research this response?  Would providing the constitutional reference or perhaps regulatory guidance?

I agree it's a little fuzzy, and I don't know the answer, but perhaps the interstate vs intrstate is where you're not following?

Why does interstate imply juxtaposition on a map?  Is that a legal definition thing?

I know - the surprise (for me) was that he managed to show no overt bitterness about the situation. Most people would be furious at the red tape and many would give up, which I suppose is the point of red tape as industry gatekeeper.

Well this is excellent information.

I'll have to look up the Ohio minimum, but seems like for less than the cost of one bitcoin ATM ($5k), I might be able to get licensed & start selling bitcoins!

Very exciting!

Heck, I may be happy to do that just so I can "legally" sell bitcoins.  However, I may worry more about that a few months down the road.  Let FIN CEN and the futures commodity commisioner hash out some more guidance.

Not all states require a license for money transmitters although I figure it is only a matter of time.  It gets more complicated in that some US "territories" like Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico and whatever the hell Washing DC is also license money transmitters.  Of course the laws aren't uniform.  Some only require a license for entities operating in the jurisdiction.  Some require licenses for entities who offer services to citizens of their jurisdiction.  Even the definition of what is a money transmitter varies from location to location.

The cost of the license is usually trivial however most states require a surety bond and certain capitalization requirements.  Those are pretty tough.  You may wonder why the state wants the company to have large amounts of funds AND a surety bond in case something goes wrong.  The reason (or at least stated reason) is that States don't regulate MT for AML or KYC reasons they regulate them in the name of consumer protection.  Take your billpay provider as an example.  Say you use your billpay provider to pay your mortgage.  Well the reality is you don't pay your mortgage.  You give money to the billpay provider in return for the promise to pay your mortgage company.  Now imagine they don't and just disappear with the money.   Oops your mortgage is now delinquent.   Now worst case scenario you can't afford to make a second payment so your home goes into foreclosure.  Now that is extreme but traditionally MT have been an entity which acts as a middle man between TWO PARTIES (i.e. Sally uses WU to pay John).  FinCEN guidance tries to cram exchanging virtual currency into MT but the states are more concerned about ensuring that if a MT fails that there are funds to compensate victims who's payments "disappear".