Home Business Industry groups from Amazon to Uber oppose California crypto law

Industry groups from Amazon to Uber oppose California crypto law

Industry groups from Amazon to Uber oppose California crypto law
  • California Governor Gavin Newsom may approve a new bill that would require cryptocurrency companies to obtain a license to operate in the state.
  • Industry groups representing Amazon, Apple, Block, Coinbase, Genesis, Google, GrubHub, Lyft, Facebook/Meta, Uber and other companies have written to the National Assembly opposing the law.
  • Nine organizations representing consumers and advocating for economic justice wrote to the state assembly expressing their support for the law.

The California Crypto Regulation Act would bring the state closer to overseeing crypto exchanges. In August, the California State Assembly passed the Digital Financial Assets Actwhich would require cryptocurrency and digital asset exchange companies to obtain a license before being allowed to operate in the state.

The bill, which was sent to Governor Gavin Newsom on September 12 and still needs his signature, has been met with opposition from cryptocurrency companies and interest groups. This is similar to New York’s “BitLicense” law, which came into force in 2015 and similarly requires crypto companies to obtain a state license.

The California bill also states that stablecoins — or cryptocurrencies whose price is tied to a real-world commodity — can only be issued by a bank or authorized by the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation.

Insider filed a public record request requesting a record of all individuals and groups who contacted the California State Assembly about the law, which also goes through the Senate Bill or Assembly Bill 2269. documents responding to the request show that 18 organizations and coalitions wrote to state officials about the bill.

Several tech industry groups representing large corporations and venture capitalists have written to oppose the law. They represented companies such as Amazon, Apple, Block, Coinbase, Google, GrubHub, Lyft, Facebook/Meta and Uber. Several consumer and economic justice organizations have written to the state assembly expressing their support for the law.

Interest groups have argued that the regulations place an “undue burden” on crypto companies

  1. Blockchain Advocacy Coalition

The Blockchain Advocacy Coalition wrote to Assemblyman Grayson on August 26. She said she was opposed to SB 2269 unless it was changed. He said registration requirements for digital asset companies are “onerous,” criticized the ban on stablecoins, and argued that the definition of “digital financial asset” in the bill does not is unclear”.

  1. Electronic Transactions Association

The Electronic Transactions Association wrote to Assemblyman Tom Umberg on June 24 and Assemblyman Grayson on August 26 to say it was opposed to 2269 unless amended. He said the registration requirements are “too onerous,” criticized the ban on stablecoins, and said the bill’s definition of “digital financial asset” presented “ambiguity.”

The Electronic Transactions Association has 339 member companiesincluding Afterpay, Amazon, American Express, Capital One, Chase, Google, JP Morgan Chase, Mastercard, PayPal, Stripe, Visa, Wells Fargo and Western Union.

  1. Blockchain Association

The Blockchain Association wrote to Assemblyman Grayson in an undated letter expressing its opposition to AB 2269. She criticized the ban on stablecoins and said the registration requirements were “profoundly onerous and unworkable” for many companies.

The Blockchain Association has 91 member companiesincluding Genesis, Consensys and US Bitcoin Corp.

  1. California Credit Union League

The California Credit Union League, which represents more than 230 credit unions, wrote to Assemblyman Grayson on July 13. She said she would support AB 2269 if it was amended to give credit unions the same exempt status given to banks. The running text of the bill currently benefits from this exemption.

  1. Chamber of progress

Chamber of Progress, a technology industry association with 31 member companies, wrote to Anthony Portantino, state senator and chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, on July 27, and Assemblyman Grayson on August 25. The association said it would support SB 2269 if it was changed. He argued that registration requirements would hurt small businesses and encouraged the state to establish “crypto license reciprocity” with other states, such as New York, and introduce a “provisional license” for businesses. candidates.

Chamber of progress member companies include Amazon, Apple, Google, GrubHub, Lyft, Facebook/Meta and Uber.

  1. Sunstone Trust Company

The Sunstone Trust Company wrote to Assemblyman Grayson on June 21 saying it would support AB 2269 if it were amended to “include California-chartered trust companies, as well as depositary banks, as exempt. license” under the law.

  1. The Money Services Roundtable

The Money Services Roundtable, a consortium of leading “non-bank money transmitters”, wrote to Assemblyman Grayson on August 19 expressing its opposition to AB 2269. He argued that the licenses of digital asset company should be issued under existing money transmission licenses as existing registration requirements would “create an undue burden” on businesses.

According to the letter, member organizations of the Money Services Round Table include American Express, Western Union, MoneyGram, RIA Financial Services and Sigue Corporation.

Interest groups in favor of the bill argued that it would protect consumers from scammers

The California Bankers Association wrote to Assemblyman Grayson on June 26 expressing support for AB 2269. She said cryptocurrency companies have the potential to “broaden consumer participation” in the finance, but volatility presents “risk” and regulation could provide “safety and soundness”. .”

A few pro-consumer and pro-economic coalitions wrote to state assembly makers expressing their support for AB 2269. They all said the lack of regulation had enabled a slew of cryptocurrency scams. currency and that registration requirements and stablecoin restrictions would protect consumers. and increase the transparency of cryptocurrency transitions.

The California Consumer Federation, California Association for Micro Enterprise Opportunity, California Reinvestment Coalition and Californians for Economic Justice wrote to Monique Limón, chair of the Senate Committee on Banking and Financial Institutions, on June 27 expressing their support for the ‘AB 2269.

The California Low Income Consumer Coalition joined the coalition mentioned above, all writing to Senator Portantino on July 25 to express their support. Next, Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety, the Sacramento Capitol Service Employees International Union, the Greenlighting Institute and the Older Women’s League joined this coalition in a joint letter of support to Assemblyman Grayson on August 26.

One group wrote without expressing a position on the bill.

The Crypto Council for Innovation wrote to Assemblyman Tim Grayson, chairman of the state Assembly’s Banking and Finance Committee, on June 20 and said its members are “reviewing the bill in detail. and hope to provide meaningful feedback soon.” There was no follow-up correspondence in the public record request. The council members include Andreessen Horowitz, Block, Coinbase, Electric Capital, Fidelity Digital Assets, Gemini, Paradigm and Ribbit Capital.

Do you have any advice? Contact this reporter at chaskins@insider.com or caroline.haskins@protonmail.com, or via the Signal secure messaging app at +1 (785) 813-1084. Reach out using a non-professional device.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here