At least in state-based commercial law, you don't want Bitcoin classified as "money". That enables more financial surveillance and restrictions:

"Not being defined as money means that Bitcoin transactions are not recognized as money transmission, which would otherwise require various licenses, permissions, and legal registrations. Overall, that keeps the Bitcoin protocol outside the regulatory scope of restrictive rules that apply to legal tender like the US dollar.

It also means that in bankruptcy proceedings which normally split assets like cash or money held in a bank account, the allocation of Bitcoin would depend on who ultimately has “property rights” over the coins. In the case of a bankrupt firm such as FTX or Voyager, those rights would belong to the customer who purchased the Bitcoin, and could not be considered as company property."

https://www.btcpolicy.org/articles/in-attempt-to-stop-cbdcs-states-are-rejecting-ostensibly-pro-bitcoin-legislation

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

No replies yet.