Senator from Mississippi introduces bill to recognize Bitcoin in the state code

[Husires]

State Senator Josh Harkins (R), chairman of the Mississippi Senate Finance Committee, has filed a set of bills aimed at addressing this developing digital currency:

SB 2631 – This bill would exempt virtual currencies from the Mississippi Money Transmitters Act. It has been referred to the Senate Business and Financial Institutions Committee.

SB 2632 – This bill would create a Digital Assest Act, classifying digital assets and specify that digital assets are property within the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). It would authorize security interests in digital assets and establish an opt-in framework for banks to provide custodial services for digital asset property. It has been double referred to the Senate Business and Financial Institutions Committee and the Senate Judiciary, Division A Committee.

SB 2633 – This bill would create an exemption for open blockchain tokens from securities laws, meaning a developer or seller of an open blockchain token shall not be deemed the issuer of a security and shall not be subject to the provisions of the Mississippi Securities Act of 2010 if conditions are met as set out in the bill. It has been referred to the Senate Business and Financial Institutions Committee.

Source: https://yallpolitics.com/2022/01/26/bill-of-the-day-state-sen-harkins-seeks-to-bring-mississippi-into-the-age-of-digital-currency/


It's still not clear if these bills will get them out of ad hoc committees but we're seeing more and more seemingly tolerant (non-anti-) crypto-tolerant legislation in one form or another.

The coming years, with increasing alarm, may be the beginning of pressure on lawmakers for more separate crypto-currency legislation.

[1714961613]

1714961613

[Poker Player]

I am not very knowledgeable about the particularities of these U.S. states, but as in the case of Arizona, it seems to me a double-edged sword. On the one hand, I'd rather see legislation introduced to regulate Bitcoin rather than ban it, but on the other hand, I don't know if all this is going to end up in more and more state control through KYC rules. My guess is that it will, and I don't see how there could be massive global adoption otherwise, as states are not going to let huge amounts of money escape their control.

[avikz]

These are quite positive I will say!

SB 2631 – This bill would exempt virtual currencies from the Mississippi Money Transmitters Act. It has been referred to the Senate Business and Financial Institutions Committee.

Quite positive! Virtual currencies do not have same characteristics like a traditional currency. So the way one can regulate traditional currency, can't be always applied on VC.

SB 2632 – This bill would create a Digital Assest Act, classifying digital assets and specify that digital assets are property within the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). It would authorize security interests in digital assets and establish an opt-in framework for banks to provide custodial services for digital asset property. It has been double referred to the Senate Business and Financial Institutions Committee and the Senate Judiciary, Division A Committee.

That's even more positive. So this state is now planning to regulate the crypto assets and willing to provide a legal framework around it. Also they are planning for inclusion of financial institutions within the framework. These are positive developments.

[Husires]

I am not very knowledgeable about the particularities of these U.S. states, but as in the case of Arizona, it seems to me a double-edged sword. On the one hand, I'd rather see legislation introduced to regulate Bitcoin rather than ban it, but on the other hand, I don't know if all this is going to end up in more and more state control through KYC rules. My guess is that it will, and I don't see how there could be massive global adoption otherwise, as states are not going to let huge amounts of money escape their control.

People are afraid of the lack of regulatory cover and therefore the existence of regulations is good.
Privacy has value and it is difficult for the average user to maintain privacy, there is no problem with KYC for most users.

Decentralization means that the money is not in the hands of the government.

The government wants to know where this money is. When they knows, they will own it.
The problem they have is not in obtaining the money, but rather in not hiding it from them.

That's even more positive. So this state is now planning to regulate the crypto assets and willing to provide a legal framework around it. Also they are planning for inclusion of financial institutions within the framework. These are positive developments.

I don't know how the final version of the law will be.

[yhiaali3]

Arizona for several days and now Mississippi I think this is positive, we expect to see more states joining in to regulate bitcoin and cryptocurrency, this has two sides one positive and one negative, positive it is good to see more states join to recognize or regulate cryptocurrency . On the downside, I am afraid that KYC restrictions will be imposed on exchanges and third-party services and this will indirectly bring cryptocurrencies under the control of the government.

[Husires]

On the downside, I am afraid that KYC restrictions will be imposed on exchanges and third-party services and this will indirectly bring cryptocurrencies under the control of the government.

The transparency in Bitcoin makes the possibility of adoption easy.

• if a good amount is invested in tracking coins to ensure that all transactions are subject to taxes.
• the simple investor cannot hide his coins from the eyes of the authorities for a long time.

I'd be surprised if it was recognized as legal tender or some bitcoin was bought as a precaution, risk diversification or investment.