Connecticut's legislators unanimously passed a laws during which state and native governments prohibit the acceptance of cryptocurrency payments and the upkeep of crypto assets.
The House Bill 7082 entitled “A Law on Various Changes in Money Transfer Act, state payments and investments in virtual currency […]“Received non -partisan support and was signed within the law on Tuesday.
The draft law provides that “neither the state nor a political subdivision of the state” accepts “payments in cryptocurrency or acquire crypto assets.
An extract from Connecticut's house bill 7082. Source: Legiscan
Legislation also prohibits the state of Connecticut the establishment of a crypto asset reserve and makes it considered one of the few US states which have expressly rejected the concept of the crypto assets reserves.
Democrats push the bill
The draft law was first presented by the joint bank committee for banking committees from Connecticut and was brought up by Democrats, including the state representative Ken Gucker, Senator Patricia Miller and Senator Matthew Lesser.
Since the primary vote in May, the draft law has received widespread support from the home. 105 votes support the draft law and only 42 legislators who vote against it on May 14 in a vote.
The latest passage got here out of 148 votes in favor of the draft law and the zero opponent with three intervals.
Some online commentators cited the essential majority of the Democratic Party in Connecticut as a vital driver of unanimous vote, especially in the midst of the broader criticism of the party within the participation of President Donald Trump in Memecoins and digital assets.
A associated proposal, the trendy law on the enforcement of emoluments and miscarriage, or the Meme Act, goals to forestall the federal officials from using their positions to profit from memoins.
The ban “does nothing of substance”
According to some online industry observers, the prohibition of crypto investment by Connecticut by the state might be advanced with regard to volatility and regulation, but could grow to be an obstacle to innovation.
On the opposite hand, the founding father of Brogan Law, Aaron Brogan, Cointelegraph, said that the ban does “nothing of substance” and quite reflects that “some subgroups are polarized by Democrats against the cryptocurrency industry”, probably due to their reference to Trump.
“This is the signal transmission that Connecticut symbolically contradicts cryptocurrency and all countries during which Bitcoin reserves were determined,” said Brogan and added:
“State lawyers like to forbid things that didn’t occur anyway, since it gets headlines without the annoying problem of really having consequences in the true world.”
Brogan also emphasized that Connecticut's governor still has to sign the law and identified additional disclosure requirements for money channels within the private sector.
“This could possibly be expensive and skilled practices within the technique to enable California data protection laws for some online applications,” he said.
Growing list of states that reject Bitcoin reserves
After the Trump administration, the variety of US countries that take a look at Bitcoin (BTC) -See -Reserve has increased, with the variety of strategic Bitcoin reserve (SBR) grades 31, the info from Bitcoin laws.
However, Connecticut will not be only when rejecting such initiatives, whereby the legislature in five states – Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota and Pennsylvania – kills SBR law templates alone in February.
In March, the Utah Senate adopted a Bitcoin bill, but modified to remove a bit that had authorized the state treasure master to take a position in Bitcoin. The state of Oklahoma followed in April when the Senate's substitute and tax committee also rejected an SBR proposal in a vote of 6 to five.
The list of states that rejected the Bitcoin reserve calculations continued to grow in May, whereby Florida had postponed the SBR calculation indefinitely at the start of May and Arizona's governor two crypto calculations have a veto a veto invoice.
