California to encourage companies to deal in cryptocurrency?

[DireWolfM14]

I'm no fan of California's governor, Grave Nuisance Gavin Newsome, and now he's done something which I believe is a mixed blessing.  Yesterday he signed an executive order requiring regulatory agencies to create a regulatory framework for companies dealing in crypto.  I think this was inevitable, and certainly seems to be a harbinger of mass adoption, but exactly how do these bureaucrats expect to regulate crypto?  

Let's be honest, Newsome isn't a fan of crypto but he's also not dumb.  He sees the tide is coming in, and he wants to make sure he's getting a piece of the pie.  Reading the article it becomes apparent that the headlines are rather misleading, and possibly intentionally so.  The purpose isn't to encourage crypto, it's to regulate it.  

I've seen this kind of thing before.  In the aughts and teens California changed the way the internet does business.  In the early days mail order and internet purchases were not subject to California's sales tax, and through law-suits and regulation the state changed all that.  If there's a state in this country that has the sway and clout to change the way the world deals in crypto, California is the narcissistic state that thinks it has that swagger.  They may be right.

https://apnews.com/article/cryptocurrency-biden-technology-business-california-0586164898c33eeaefa0afa835fd7b50

[1715212330]

1715212330

[1715212330]

1715212330

[1715212330]

1715212330

[naira]

I tried looking up some of Gavin Newsome's background on the internet and came across a book he wrote called Citizenville, which outlines the use of digital tools for democratic change. When we talk about democracy, we are not far from what is called freedom. Both in terms of the realm of freedom to decide opinions or determine the path of choice. In the book, he relates it to digital use, which means crypto is part of digital development itself. When Gavin Newsome urges every executive body to create a regulatory framework that means the freedom of companies dealing in crypto is restricted and controlled?

Few democracies are shackled, right? unfortunately, no one has linked crypto rules in his book.

[Welsh]

I don't know much about this Gavin Newsome, although that article is an absolute mess. Can't believe they had to put the Warren Buffet quote in, and its almost coming across as why would Gavin Newsome do this sort of thing, considering there's so many warning sides. I'm sensing a little bias in this article. Anyway, on to the question; I imagine they'll regulate it through taxes right? If you think about it, California has some of the most wealthy people, and businesses in the world, and I imagine a lot of them will be invested in Bitcoin, so it makes sense to adjust taxes to suit them. I'm not at all familiar with how states work, and how they pass laws, but I'm assuming they'll attempt to adjust the tax rate for Bitcoin/cryptocurrencies to be more than that of fiat, that would be my thinking. Plus, they'll bring in legalisation which benefits their pockets when it comes to operating a business involved with cryptocurrencies.

I imagine this will be the case for quite a few states, and countries. Cryptocurrency companies will likely be put under higher levels of scrutiny, and be taxed higher than the standard tax threshold, they'll justify this with its volatile, and risky nature, while directly benefiting from it.

[DireWolfM14]

I tried looking up some of Gavin Newsome's background on the internet and came across a book he wrote called Citizenville, which outlines the use of digital tools for democratic change. When we talk about democracy, we are not far from what is called freedom. Both in terms of the realm of freedom to decide opinions or determine the path of choice. In the book, he relates it to digital use, which means crypto is part of digital development itself. When Gavin Newsome urges every executive body to create a regulatory framework that means the freedom of companies dealing in crypto is restricted and controlled?

Few democracies are shackled, right? unfortunately, no one has linked crypto rules in his book.

The interesting thing about politicians in general, and quite specifically those who are Democrats, and quite precisely those Democrats from California; when they say "freedom" they intend exact opposite.

I don't know much about this Gavin Newsome, although that article is an absolute mess. Can't believe they had to put the Warren Buffet quote in, and its almost coming across as why would Gavin Newsome do this sort of thing, considering there's so many warning sides. I'm sensing a little bias in this article. Anyway, on to the question; I imagine they'll regulate it through taxes right? If you think about it, California has some of the most wealthy people, and businesses in the world, and I imagine a lot of them will be invested in Bitcoin, so it makes sense to adjust taxes to suit them. I'm not at all familiar with how states work, and how they pass laws, but I'm assuming they'll attempt to adjust the tax rate for Bitcoin/cryptocurrencies to be more than that of fiat, that would be my thinking. Plus, they'll bring in legalisation which benefits their pockets when it comes to operating a business involved with cryptocurrencies.

I imagine this will be the case for quite a few states, and countries. Cryptocurrency companies will likely be put under higher levels of scrutiny, and be taxed higher than the standard tax threshold, they'll justify this with its volatile, and risky nature, while directly benefiting from it.

The US Constitution is intended to keep each state as a separate entity.  It's essentially a contract that limits the power any level of government over a specific set of individual rights, but also sets limits on the Federal Government over the states.  Since it's inception, of course there have been attempts to thwart those limits by power hungry federal representatives (Senate Congress,) judiciaries (Supreme Court,) and executives (Presidents.)  But when the three branches collude, what can you do?  Picture the EU after 246 years of "globalist" interference.

As it is, the states still have a significant amount of power over their citizens, and that's by design.  Since it's a smaller government the idea is that it has more accurate representation of it's citizenry.

Of course Bitcoin is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but what is mentioned is that anything that is not within the scope of the fed is within the realm of the states.  So, it's well within the state's rights to regulate anything that is not specifically limited as an "individual right."

[Darker45]

Well, it's California, the home of Silicon Valley. It can't be laggard in terms of the latest technologies. It can't be the one to stall its growth. And whether the governor isn't familiar or isn't a fan of crypto, he simply can't go against the entire spirit of the state, although it is a bit ironic that the bill to accept crypto for state services failed to gain approval.

Anyway, more often than not, to encourage, and both adaption and adoption, are equated with regulation. Acceptance is almost always equated with putting up policies and frameworks and rules and guidelines.

[Poker Player]

The interesting thing about politicians in general, and quite specifically those who are Democrats, and quite precisely those Democrats from California; when they say "freedom" they intend exact opposite.

That's what I was thinking. If I had a cryptocurrency company, I wouldn't go to California, at least to Florida or one like that where they don't impose a thousands of regulations and the highest taxes in the USA. It is no longer the state that saw the birth and growth of Big Tech, and if many of them do not leave it is because they are already settled there, but there has been an exodus of people and companies from that socialist state that restricts freedoms, to freer states.

[davis196]

Well, it's California, the home of Silicon Valley. It can't be laggard in terms of the latest technologies. It can't be the one to stall its growth. And whether the governor isn't familiar or isn't a fan of crypto, he simply can't go against the entire spirit of the state, although it is a bit ironic that the bill to accept crypto for state services failed to gain approval.

Anyway, more often than not, to encourage, and both adaption and adoption, are equated with regulation. Acceptance is almost always equated with putting up policies and frameworks and rules and guidelines.

The Silicon Valley isn't what it used to be.Nowadays,states like Texas are more high tech friendly than California.
The leftist liberals can ruin everything they touch.
Anyway,I'm not optimistic about this "mass crypto adoption" thing.It's not like an avalanche of companies would adopt crypto payments,right after certain regulations are being imposed.
It's good to have a clear regulatory frame,but the impact of such new regulations is questionable.
I don't expect California to become "the crypto state" or "the Mecca of blockchain technology".  

[mk4]

We might not be there yet, but we're slowly but surely coming to the point where politicians outlawing or even just publicly hating on bitcoin/crypto is political suicide. Apparently San Francisco/Silicon Valley is becoming a total craphole now, so Newsom is probably just trying to save face.

[kryptqnick]

What I like is how it's local legislation, so even people living in the US can avoid issues if they're in a different state. As for the language use and embracing cryptos, I think it really depends on the regulation. Grey area is fine for small users but can be a big issue for some businesses and some activities. Some want to be sure what they're doing is fully legal, so if there's no clear legislation, they might not enter that market. So regulations can be good. Of course, they'd likely mean taxes, but I think taxation of cryptos is already a thing, and these regulations might just help clarify some things and prepare the necessary infrastructure. Regulations can be restrictive, but they can also be friendly. So I believe that we'll be able to judge the California case when particular details of the bill become known.

[avikz]

It's really good to see that California has a visionary governor. While majority of the politicians fail to understand the impact of cryptocurrencies on the economy, such kind of exceptions really keeps our hopes alive. We are getting there, slowly but surely! I am not a fan of regulations but this is something we can't really avoid.

Also for legal entities, it is very important to have a legal framework available so that they can transact in cryptos with confidence. I just hope no other corporates start hoarding up like Microstrategy.

[Gyfts]

California wants to embrace crypto currency and regulate it...I am skeptical. How often have government regulations been taken too far and caused deleterious effects because of incompetence or power hungry politicians looking for control? They might try lowering their tax rate if they were serious about being a cryptocurrency hub. But they need all the tax revenue they can get so they can waste it on government bureaucracy.

We might not be there yet, but we're slowly but surely coming to the point where politicians outlawing or even just publicly hating on bitcoin/crypto is political suicide. Apparently San Francisco/Silicon Valley is becoming a total craphole now, so Newsom is probably just trying to save face.

Newsome will take a good headline when he can get it considering his poll numbers are in the gutter.

[mk4]

It's really good to see that California has a visionary governor.

Erm, this is the dude that wanted to shut down the Diablo Canyon — the last nuclear plant in California. Calling him a "visionary" is giving far him too much credit. And add to the fact that apparently California has turned into a shitshow? Nope.

[stompix]

I'm no fan of California's governor, Grave Nuisance Gavin Newsome, and now he's done something which I believe is a mixed blessing.  Yesterday he signed an executive order requiring regulatory agencies to create a regulatory framework for companies dealing in crypto.  I think this was inevitable, and certainly seems to be a harbinger of mass adoption, but exactly how do these bureaucrats expect to regulate crypto?  

Pretty simple, you're allowed to do that and this and if you do otherwise you go to jail!
The usual way everything is regulated when somebody really wants it!

I went through his order:
https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/5.4.22-Blockchain-EO-N-9-22-signed.pdf
doesn't say much, but Califonia, democrats, election incoming, desperate need for money I can see how this will end.

Engagement should include companies both based in and outside California;
stakeholders interested in blockchain and crypto assets as a means to address systemic inequities;
and stakeholders concerned about potential negative externalities, including energy consumption and environmental impact.

As I said, California, if this regulation is not going to have something about race, gender inequality, and taxes on saving the planet it's going to be a miracle.

Well, it's California, the home of Silicon Valley. It can't be laggard in terms of the latest technologies.

It's just the name left and California is not just Silicon Valley, companies migrate where taxes are low see what's happening with Oracle and HP, and there is little to be done after a lot of states have had an early start and are becoming more business-friendly overall.
Let's wait for the actual regulation, the more complex those regulations are the less attractive they are.

[ajochems]

It’s was good news for the crypto currency traders and the investors.So the flow of crypto currency will be increased in the California.California was deciding the most of the country economy in this world.California government giving business to many countries and private sector of the California will give business to many countries.So this new will create some impacts on crypto currency market.

[wilkine]

I couldn't help but think about how the regulation will turn out. Still no answer to the pros and cons

[evilgreed]

               Oh well, we really cannot blame the guy though since more and more people are setting their eyes on bitcoin it is just right that anyone would want a piece of this new thing and they would want to get as much benefits as they can suck out of it. Either that or he is just doing this to increase his fame towards the public. Whatever his reason is, be it good or bad there sure are benefits for him and I just hope that he, along with the other people that has the power to decide will not take things too far and take too much advantage that it becomes very unreasonable to the crypto enthusiasts.

[romero121]

It's really good to see that California has a visionary governor.

Erm, this is the dude that wanted to shut down the Diablo Canyon — the last nuclear plant in California. Calling him a "visionary" is giving far him too much credit. And add to the fact that apparently California has turned into a shitshow? Nope.

I don't know how things happen with the nuclear power plants generating electricity. In my country more protests have taken place to close few nuclear power plants based on data on people affected by tumor. I don't know for what reason California Governor wants to shutdown the nuclear power plant, but if it for the reason similar to that in my country then he's truly "visionary"