South Dakota is proposing a bill to change the definition of money to exclude Bitcoin
The state of South Dakota is making moves to redefine what constitutes money, with a strong interest in classifying cryptocurrencies.
The bill entitled ‘An Act to amend provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code‘ indicates that digital currencies such as Bitcoin (BTC) will be excluded from defining money since they come from individuals or organizations.
Under the proposed amendment, a possible medium of exchange would be identified as money only if it is “authorized or adopted” by a government.
“Money means a medium of exchange currently authorized or adopted by a domestic or foreign government. The term includes a monetary unit of account established by an intergovernmental organization or by agreement between two or more countries.”
The bill adds:
“The term does not include an electronic record that is a medium of exchange registered and transferable in a system that existed and operated for the medium of exchange before the medium of exchange was authorized or adopted by the authorities.”
Make room for CBDCs
Commenting on the bill, Dennis Porter, the founder of the Satoshi Fund, an organization dedicated to educating lawmakers and regulators about Bitcoin, stated that if passed, the law would give way to establishing a central bank digital currency (CBDC).
In a chirping On March 2, Porter stated that the bill pushes to establish pro-CBDC states in the United States
“The worst thing about this is that it’s an attempt to push this policy in 21 different states across the US. It’s apparently aimed at building a bullpen of pro-CBDC states that also excludes digital assets like Bitcoin from the definition of money ,” he said.
Similarly, Andy Roth, president of the State Freedom Caucus Network, warned that the bill sets a precedent for Bitcoin not being allowed in transactions.
CBDC criticism
South Dakota’s move is one of many similar attempts being made across the United States as lawmakers grapple with how to regulate digital currencies. As part of offering a regulatory perspective, CBDCs have been fronted to curb the influence of private digital assets.
However, critics of CBDCs have argued that it is a ruse for the government to survey citizens. In this regard, as reported by Finbold, United States Congressman Tom Emmer introduced a new bill that sought to block the Federal Reserve (Fed) from issuing a CBDC. He argued that the legislation aims to preserve citizens’ financial privacy.
