California Moves Forward Bill on Unclaimed Crypto, Merchant Payments

• California Assembly passes a bill regulating crypto payments.
• Assembly Bill 1052 addresses unclaimed crypto assets after three years.
• Critics warn that the bill represents an overreach of state power.
• Supporters argue bill’s intent has been misunderstood in public discourse.
• Provisions in the bill allow for acceptance of crypto by businesses in California.

California Bill Tackles Unclaimed Crypto and Merchant Payments

California Moves to Implement New Crypto Regulations The California State Assembly has just passed a significant measure aimed at the regulation of cryptocurrency payments. In a unanimous vote of 78-0 on June 3, the Assembly greenlit Assembly Bill (AB) 1052. This bill isn’t just about payments; it also introduces a system for handling unclaimed crypto assets, allowing the state to take control of these assets from exchanges if they have been inactive for more than three years. Under this bill, if a user hasn’t accessed their account or made any transaction—essentially showing any interest or acknowledgement of that asset—the state can officially classify it as unclaimed property. This means users will need to be diligent or risk losing their assets to California’s Department of Financial Protection and Innovation. The Assembly’s decision represents a notable step towards regulation of the crypto world in the state, which some say has been slow to adapt to these evolving technologies. They’ll now head to the Senate where it might see further discussions or potential amendments before heading to Governor Gavin Newsom’s desk.

Mixed Reactions Surround His Legislation

Unveiling Opinions on the New Legislation To say that the response to this new crypto-focused bill has been varied would be an understatement. Critics have raised their voices on social platforms, expressing concerns that the bill represents an intrusive step by state authorities into the crypto sphere. Conversely, proponents think these regulations are necessary, emphasizing that many misunderstand the bill’s core intent. Eric Peterson, a policy director at the Satoshi Action Fund, who was involved in drafting earlier versions of the legislation, pointed out those misunderstandings, stating that the law seeks to modernize how unclaimed property laws work. Rather than liquidating Bitcoin after three years of inactivity, the intent is to maintain its original form so rightful owners can claim back their crypto assets in Bitcoin. Peterson elaborated, saying custodians will have to transfer the Bitcoin to state-selected licensed custodians instead of converting it to fiat currency. This is particularly critical as California already has similar frameworks for traditional financial assets left inactive, maintaining a standard and safeguarding against potential loss during mismanagement.

As California pushes forward with Assembly Bill 1052, it seeks to redefine how unclaimed cryptocurrency is treated, potentially paving the way for broader regulatory standards on digital assets. The future of this legislation now rests in the hands of the Senate, where its components may well be refined. With mixed opinions abounding, both supporters and critics are likely to keep the discussion on the impacts of such a bill ongoing as it heads toward potential enactment.