http://www.dfs.ny.gov/about/speeches/sp1506031.htmhttp://www.dfs.ny.gov/legal/regulations/adoptions/dfsp200t.pdf(This is crazy, they posted his speech already, but it's also going on live right now... mind blown)
"I’d like to turn now to the BitLicense.
Today, we are issuing the final BitLicense framework for regulating virtual currency firms.
This framework is the product of a nearly two-year-long regulatory inquiry that the New York State Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) began in 2013. In fact, this is the third and final version of the regulation we have put forward.
Over the course of our inquiry, we have received an immense amount of public feedback, which we believe significantly improved the final product.
Indeed, the second version of the regulation we put forward incorporated a number of substantial changes from our initial draft in response to those comments. In particular, we sought to help provide an on-ramp for start-ups – while still ensuring robust standards for consumer protection, cyber security, and anti-money-laundering compliance.
The third and final version does not include the type of major changes we saw in the last round. However, we did want to make several points clear today in order to allay various concerns we have heard during the public comment period.
To that end, we wanted to make crystal clear that:
First, companies will not need prior approval for standard software or app updates – only for material changes to their products or business models. (A good example of a material change would be if a firm that was licensed as a wallet service decided to begin offering exchange services. We have no interest in micro-managing minor app updates. We’re not Apple.)
Second, we have no intention of being a regulator of software developers – only financial intermediaries. For example, students or other innovators who are simply developing software and are not holding onto customer funds are not required to apply for a BitLicense. There is an important reason for making this distinction when a company becomes a financial intermediary: There is a basic bargain that when a financial company is entrusted with safeguarding customer funds and receives a license from the state to do so – it accepts the need for heightened regulatory scrutiny to help ensure that a consumer’s money does not just disappear into a black hole.
Third, we are not going to require a duplicative set of application submissions for firms that want both a BitLicense and a money transmitter license. Firms will be able to cross-satisfy many of those license requirements. Companies will be able to work with us to have a “one-stop” application submission that covers all the bases they need.
Fourth, companies that already file suspicious activity reports (also called “SARs”) with federal regulators such as FinCEN do not have to file a duplicate set of those same SARs with our agency. Our goal is to avoid duplication where possible. And we generally already have access to that information when we need it through information sharing arrangements with federal regulators.
Fifth, companies also would not need prior approval from NYDFS for every new round of venture capital funding. Generally, a company would only need prior approval if the investor wants to direct the management and policies of the firm (which is known as a “control person” in regulatory jargon). In other words, that provision is not targeted at truly “passive investors.” The notion of approving a “control person” is pretty standard in the regulation of financial companies and is generally intended to help stop known fraudsters from having direct access to customer funds. Large new investors (i.e. those with a 10 percent or more stake) would simply need to document and demonstrate that they are not going to have such a role. Additionally, under the regulation, simply because someone sits on a company’s board does not necessarily mean they are considered a control person.
We understand, of course, that we are not going to satisfy everyone with these new regulations.
Some have even suggested removing all anti-money laundering requirements for certain financial companies involved in digital currency, which we do not believe is warranted.
Again, we recognize that we are not going to please everyone. That is the nature of regulatory oversight.
For example, when we write new regulations for Wall Street, if the banks are completely happy with something we've drafted, it probably means we haven't done our jobs right.
Our goal, as always, is to be sensible and fair. "
Poll
