Blockchain and Crypto Businesses Protest New Nevada Bill

Representatives within the blockchain and cryptocurrency community recently voiced their concerns about a proposed bill in the Nevada State Senate during a Judiciary Committee last Tuesday, March 12.

The bill dubbed SB 195, would in effect introduce a number of new uniform standards to the digital currency sector and would require all crypto-related companies such as crypto exchanges to register with the state’s Department of Business and Industry.

Known also as The Uniform Regulation of Virtual-Currency Businesses Act, sponsored by Democratic senator, James Ohrenschall is an initiative which was proposed by the Uniform Law Commission in an effort to introduce comprehensive and consistent regulations the digital currency arena. During the hearing, Ohrenschall stated that other versions of the bill have already been implemented in state legislatures in Hawaii, Oklahoma as well as California.

Following the initial explanation of the bill to the committee, representatives from the crypto community protested the legislation. The Nevada Technology Association (NTA) argued that the bill was premature in nature and would put the state of Nevada in a competitive disadvantage due to blockchain still being it its embryonic stages. In addition to this, the NTA argued that bill with the core purpose of regulation of such a rapidly evolving technology would only do more harm than good.

Vice president of government affairs and strategic initiatives at Blockchain LLC – Matt Digesti claimed that no blockchain/cryptocurrency related businesses were consulted during the drafting of the bill.

Furthermore, Wendy Stolyarov, director of government affairs at the blockchain firm Filament stated that the law would “unintentionally classify us as a money transmitter because we build hardware wallet technology that enables the machine-to-machine autonomous transaction.”

It must be noted, however, that the bill is still its infancy in terms of the legislative lifecycle as it was only introduced back in February. No action was taken on the bill in committee, and thus it still has to be amended as per public records.