Coinbase Calls North Carolina Bitcoin Regulation Sensible and Innovative


Coinbase logo Bitcoin — Renowned Bitcoin company Coinbase recently wrote down its views about the Bitcoin regulations introduced by the North Carolina legislature last month.

The Californian Bitcoin wallet company, which also operates as a regulated exchange in half of the US, had some good things to tell about the legal framework designed by the aforementioned state. It thoroughly acknowledged North Carolina for improving a done-to-death Money Transmission Act (MTA) that, in its latest form, would promote innovation and regulatory efficiency.

Throughout the blog, there were references to NC’s approach to introduce certain amendments that would directly benefit the small startups, a thing that most of the other US states had failed to propose. One of these MTA amendments were about reducing the burden of young companies by making them liable to require only one license to operate. Coinbase further acknowledged NC MTA to rely on FinCEN framework rather than on the uncertain AML rules. Excerpt:

“Both state and federal regulators have an interest in preventing financial crime, but duplicative or inconsistent Anti-Money Laundering (AML) rules will cause unnecessary inefficiencies or redundancies for both regulators and businesses.”

A latter part of their online journal highlighted MTA’s sufficient in handing consumer risks that have often been associated with the Bitcoin industry, thanks to a number of scandals in past. The proposed digital currency regulatory framework asks startups to “obtain insurance coverage to address cybersecurity risks inherent in certain business models.” Something similar was said by an insurance veteran Ty Sagalow last month, who wondered if the insurance companies were ready to insure a risk-oriented technology like Bitcoin. Coinbase though stated:

“Reasonable states can disagree on whether regulation of certain virtual currency businesses is necessary in the first place, and if it is necessary, how to implement that regulation and with respect to whom. But to the extent states view money transmission regulation (or similar substitutes) as the right avenue for regulation, here’s why NC’s approach is a good one.”