2013-06-25 WSJ: States Put Heat on Bitcoin

[austins]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323998604578565961039879492.html

According to people familiar with the situation, banking regulators in California, New York and Virginia in recent weeks have issued letters telling the companies that they need to follow the state rules or prove that the rules don't apply to them.

The warnings fall short of formal "cease and desist" orders, which would demand that the companies immediately stop engaging in their business, these people said.

[Gabi]

Actually the foundation received a "cease and desist" letter, a thing one would expect only from a dictatorship

[aigeezer]

The article is full of FUD from anonymous sources, but this might be a new factoid:

"The California Department of Financial Institutions has issued at least three warnings to bitcoin-related companies in recent weeks, according to people familiar with the actions."

First time we've heard the number three, as far as I know. Of course the credibility is undermined by "The warnings fall short of formal "cease and desist" orders" since the order to the foundation has been published online. Who knows, perhaps they are talking about at least three additional warnings.

One would think the only credible source of this kind of number would be the entity that sent out the "warnings".

However: "A spokeswoman for the California banking department declined to comment on the warning letters, saying the communications are confidential and "the goal is safety and soundness and compliance with the laws that DFI enforces.""

So who are the WSJ's "people familiar with the actions", and why are they telling tales to the media? Whose spin are we getting and why?                   
 

[420]

so bitcoin foundation wasn't given an official cease and desist?