quotingI'm profoundly dismayed that California has, with a stroke of a pen from Newsom, after the Legislature acted against the will of Californians, to, by Governor Newsom's despicable act, signed AB 39 (California's bitlicense bill, conceptually a copy of the ideas put into place in New York which resulted in the NY bitlicense) into law.
nevent1q…2zap
In 2022, California's bitlicense bill was reborn once again in a bill called AB 2269 introduced by Grayson (basically the same bill that we have seen signed into law on Friday the 13th, 2023 as AB 39), but AB 2269 was vetoed by the Governor, so it did not become law last year. Regardless of changes that have been made to the bill, AB 39 (which this year, sadly did become law) suffers from the same flawed thinking as did AB 2269 in 2022, and prior Bitlicense proposals which included AB 1489 in 2019-2020, AB 1123 in 2017-2018, and AB 1326 in 2015-2016 (all of which were prior versions of California's proposed bitlicense bills that we defeated).
California simply is not a place for bitcoin proponents to continue to exist or innovate. The law takes effect in July 1, 2025, so it does give people time to prepare to leave the state, or country.
But California is not the only bitcoin unfriendly jurisdiction here. As we all know, the United States has become worse and worse for those who are innovators and who are bitcoin friendly. Most recently, the IRS has proposed a rule, which would expand the definitions of “digital assets” and “broker" to include almost everyone. This federal proposal would pull in people and projects who would not otherwise fall within the scope of these tax reporting obligations. These new brokers (essentially, almost everyone) would be required to collect personal information of users – including their name, address and tax identification number – and then furnish them with a form 1099 to help calculate the gains and losses for the digital asset sales that the brokers helped “facilitate.” This rule is simply designed to discourage digital innovators and participants in bitcoin (and other systems as well, though bitcoin is the obvious target). The comment period on the proposal ends October 30, 2023.
The overview of the proposed rule mentions the term "specified security" 17 times. It is written so as to interpret digital assets and private keys not as your property but instead, to create a rule which interprets them as the property of the state via a contorted definition of "specified securities."
The Treasury and the IRS are assuming certain assets are in fact "specified securities." They also are calling certain assets out as both "specified securities" and "digital assets," adding new reporting requirements for some and delaying new reporting for others.
Reading through this proposal you will find sections that indicate that the treatment of their dual wielding of specified securities and digital assets is intended to be applied primarily against "brokers" once they finalize this rule. But who the will be a broker (who will the rule apply to)? EVERYONE.You are a broker! He's a broker! She's a broker! We're all brokers! /s (Not in my universe - all I have to do is stop operating in this loathsome jurisdiction, and believe me there is more than one way to do that.)The proposed rule would read:"the definition of broker for purposes of section 6045 includes digital asset trading platforms, digital asset payment processors, certain digital asset hosted wallet providers, and persons who regularly offer to redeem digital assets that were created or issued by that person. In addition, these proposed regulations would require real estate reporting persons to report on real estate purchasers who use digital assets to acquire real estate in a reportable real estate transaction and extend the information that must be reported under § 1.6045–4 with respect to sellers of real estate to include the fair market value of digital assets received by sellers in exchange for real estate. Additionally, in the case of a transaction involving the exchange of digital assets for goods (other than digital assets) or services, these proposed regulations treat the provision of the goods or services as reportable under section 6050W and the disposition of the digital assets as reportable under proposed § 1.6045–1 and not under section 6050W...."This vastly oversimplifies what they are doing in their reckless disregard for U.S. persons and our property. The actual proposed rule contains a lot more detail, and is far more complex and loathsome than my pitiful summary suggests.
Overview: https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/treasury-and-irs-issue-proposed-regulations-on-reporting-by-brokers-for-sales-or-exchanges-of-digital-assets-new-steps-designed-to-end-confusion-help-taxpayers-aid-high-income-compliance-workPage to submit comment by Oct 30, 2023 https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/08/29/2023-17565/gross-proceeds-and-basis-reporting-by-brokers-and-determination-of-amount-realized-and-basis-for
These attacks by both California and the federal government on innovators and bitcoin participants are truly pitiful and will simply cause real advancement and meaningful progress to happen elsewhere in the world, or even in low earth orbit. Keep on building, friends, even if it is difficult to do. There simply may be a few less places to easily do it in, but others will be far more welcoming.#bitcoin #lightning #GrowNostr
freethinkingperson on Nostr: More on this.... This is one of those "notes of dismay" I wish that either CEOs of ...
More on this.... This is one of those "notes of dismay" I wish that either CEOs of exchanges, lead developers, etc. would see, but many of them aren't on / don't currently use Nostr. If they don't that's their choice, but I think it would be helpful if they did.