United States of America – Cryptocurrency Regulation Tracker

Proelium Law LLP | The UK’s foremost legal authority on high-risk jurisdictions and specialist risk services

Proelium Law LLP combines its legal and investgative experience to provide clients with a extensive suite of capabilty in the world of crypto assets and cryptocurrency.

Cryptocurrency has been around for years, but due to the coronavirus pandemic, many countries are finally seeing the advantages of digital currencies. Regulatory reform of cryptocurrency legislation has occurred in many countries seeking to advance their economies by introducing crypto-friendly environment.

This page deals solely with the United States and the approach within its different jurisdictions. Whilst we will endeavour to keep this updated, the approach to cryptocurrency is controversial and ever changing.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us or leave us a message through our online chat. You can also take a look at our Worldwide Cryptocurrency Regulation Tracker here. 

 

• Banned – Cryptocurrency is banned in these states
• Hostile – Whilst cryptocurrency is not banned in these states, the use of cryptocurrencies is restricted
• Undecided – These states have not yet decided their approach toward cryptocurrencies
• Improving – These states are improving in their approach to cryptocurrency
• Leader – These states are welcoming and are cryptocurrency-friendly

Click below to jump to different states and territories by letter: 

A‧B‧C‧D‧E‧F‧G‧H‧I‧J‧K‧L‧M‧N‧O‧P‧Q‧R‧S‧T‧U‧V‧W‧X‧Y‧Z

 

A

Leader

• The Alabama Monetary Transmission Act (also known as SB 173), implemented in 2017,  defines monetary value as “a medium of exchange, including virtual or fiat currencies, whether or not redeemable in money.”  The act also requires those engaging in monetary transmissions to obtain a license from the state, which includes receiving virtual currency for transmission. 
• Alabama’s Securities Commission has emerged as one of the most active agencies to address fraud in the cryptocurrency industry. 
• In February 2020, House Bills 117 and 318 were introduced and both proposed to exempt virtual currency from ad valorem taxation. 

Improving

• Alaska’s House Bill (HB) 180 defines cryptocurrency as “digital units of exchange which have a centralized repository and are decentralized, distributive, open-source, math-based and peer-to-peer, or maybe created or obtained by computing or manufacturing effort”. 
• The bill was referred to the House Judiciary Committee in January 2018, and if passed will define firms dealing with cryptocurrency as money transmitters or currency exchange businesses requiring a license.
• If passed, the bill would also amend the Alaska Uniform Money Services Act to include dealing in virtual currency. 

Leader

• Arizona passed HB 2417 in March 2017  making signatures, records and contracts secured via blockchain technology legally valid. 
• In 2018 HB 2601 was introduced, which provides a set of frameworks for future “virtual coin offering” regulations. 
•  HB 2602 was introduced at the same time,  which says that a town or city within Arizona cannot “prohibit or otherwise restrict an individual from running a node on blockchain technology in a residence”.
• In February 2019, HB 2702 was proposed to bring the providing of a virtual currency for purchases into the definition of “marketplace facilitator”. This amended definition also links into the Transaction Privilege and Affiliated Excise Taxes within the states taxation regime. 

Undecided

• Arkansas adopted HB 1994 in 2019.  This legislation relates to Blockchain Technology and adds to the state’s Uniform Electronic Transactions Act.
• In 2020, the Arkansas Securities Department issued n0-action letters saying that businesses are exempt from the requirement of a license when a business sells virtual currency out of their own supplies.

 

C

Leader

• The first piece of Californian legislation to mention bitcoin is SB 843. It states that “a raffle ticket shall not be sold in exchange for bitcoin or any other cryptocurrency.”
• Assembly Bill 2658 was introduced in February 2018, and made amendments to the California Civil Code, section 1624.5.  This updated the legal term “contracts” to include “smart contracts”.
• Assembly Bill 1489 was introduced to enact the “Uniform Regulation of Virtual Currency Business Act” prohibits persons from engaging in virtual currency business activity unless licensed or registered with the Department of Business Oversight, subject to some exceptions. Penalties include fines as high as $50,000 for each day of violation.
• In February 2019, additionally introduced Assembly Bill 2150 which would exempt “digital asset” from the state’s “Corporate Securities Law of 1968” by presuming that “digital asset meeting specific criteria” is not “an investment contract within the meaning of a security”.
• In April 2019, California enacted Assembly Bill 147, in which the “providing a virtual currency that buyers are allowed or required to use to purchase products from the seller” can qualify a person as a “marketplace facilitator.”
• California Governor signed a bill in September 2020 to rename the California Department of Business Oversight as the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation. The changes will equip the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation with “new tools to reshape the regulation of virtual currency”.

Improving

• Colorado lawmakers attempted to push through 6 cryptocurrency bills in 2018.
• Of the six, only SB 86 was passed. Five other proposed bills relating to cryptocurrency were postposed indefinitely or failed to pass through the senate.
•  SB 86, enables the state’s chief information security officer to assess state databases and how blockchain might help or hinder them.

Improving

• Connecticut introduced House Bill 7141 in 2017, which requires anyone engaged in a financial services industry be licensed by the state. The bill defines virtual currency as “any time of digital unit that is used as a medium of exchanges or form of digitally stored value or that is incorporated into payment system technology”.
• Connecticut also introduced House Bill 5490 in 2018. This added a definition for “virtual currency”.
• SB 443 “An Act Establishing the Connecticut Working Group”. The goal is to assess and make legislative recommendations to promote innovation around the blockchain industry.

 

D

Leader

• Delaware enacted Senate Bill 69 in 2017. The law expressly permits corporations to trade corporate stock on the blockchain so long as the stock ledgers serve three functions: (1) to enable the corporation to prepare the list of stockholders, (2) to record information, and (3) to record transfers of stock. 
• Delaware enacted Senate Bills 89, 90, and 91, which, among other things, amend certain laws such as the Delaware Revised Uniform Partnership Act and Delaware Limited Liability Company Act to permit the use of “distributed ledgers” or a “blockchain” to maintain certain records and facilitate certain electronic transmissions.

 

F

Improving

• Florida set down its definitions of cryptocurrency in June 2017 via HB 1379, which also prohibits the laundering of virtual currency. This defines crypto as “a medium of exchange in electronic or digital format that is not a coin or currency of the United States or any other country.”
• In June 2018, it was announced that the State would appoint a Crypto Czar that would be tasked with enforcing applicable state regulations. 
• HB137 was proposed to explore the implications of storing data on a distributed ledger but was not adopted.

 

G

Undecided 

•  HB 811, signed into law in April 2016, gives the state regulators the power “to enact rules and regulations that apply solely to persons engaged in money transmission or the sale of payment instruments involving virtual currency.”
• SB 464 was drafted in January 2018 which would have required the revenue commissioner to accept and convert cryptocurrency as payment for taxes and license fee. The bill did not proceed any further and died in March 2020. 

 

H

Hostile

• In 2014, Hawaii’s commissioner of financial institutions issued a memo stating that “no company is licensed to transmit bitcoin in Hawaii” and “if companies are offering to transmit bitcoins, they are doing so in violation of Hawaii’s money transmitter laws.”
• Five years later, and cryptocurrency has yet to be defined under Hawaiian laws. SB 2853 and SB 3082, introduced in January 2018, would have defined crypto and adopted a “Uniform Regulation of Virtual Currency Act”, respectively. The former died in committee the day it was first read; the latter fell short in March after file representatives excused themselves from committee voting.

 

I

Undecided

• Idaho currently has no regulation on cryptocurrency but has posted ‘no opinion’ letters aimed at addressing their money transmission laws. 
• The latest letter was posted in August 2020.

Leader

• Illinois’s Department of Financial and Professional Regulation issued guidance in June 2017, stating that “a person or entity engaged in the transmission of solely digital currencies” would need a Transmitters of Money Act license.
• The Blockchain Business Development Act was later enacted to regulate personal information and provide for blockchain studies and reports. 
• Illinois also enacted the Blockchain Technology Act, which provides for the permitted uses of blockchain technology in transactions and proceedings; and prohibits units of local government from implementing specified restrictions on the use of blockchain

Undecided

• The State’s Money Transmitter Act does not expressly include the concept of virtual currencies and no guidance on the matter has been provided by the State.
• However, providing a virtual currency that buyers are allowed or required to use to purchase products from the seller qualifies a person as a “marketplace facilitator”. This means that crypto-firms may have to ‘ collect and remit’ taxes as a result of their activities. 
• H.B. 1683 would have allowed individuals to pay taxes using an approved virtual currency, however, this was killed in the committee stage. 

Undecided

• Iowa’s Money Services Act requires a license for the transmission of “monetary value,” however there has been no guidance as to whether this applied to cryptocurrency. 
• H.F. 255  was introduced to exempt virtual currencies from taxation, however, this was killed at committee stage. 

 

K

Undecided

• Although there are no blockchain or virtual currency specific regulations enacted in Kansas,  the Office of the State Bank Commissioner issued guidance clarifying the applicability of the Kansas Money Transmitter Act.
• Generally, cryptocurrency is not subject to the KMTA, however, scenarios such as the change of cryptocurrency for sovereign currency through a third-party exchanger may be considered money transmission. 

Improving

• The State’s Money Transmitter Act does not explicitly include the concept of “virtual currencies” but does require a license for the transmission of “monetary value.” The State’s has not published guidelines on whether virtual currencies transmissions are subject to the Act.
• Kentucky recently enacted a bill that amends their Unclaimed Property Act to explicitly include virtual currency as property. 
• In April 2020, Kentucky adopted Senate Bill 55 which established a “Blockchain Technology Working Group” that evaluates usefulness and applicability of the blockchain technology i. the state’s ‘critical infrastructure’.

 

L

Leader

• The State issued public guidance on the applicability of the State’s Money Transmitter Act to cryptocurrency transactions. FinCEN has characterized sellers of decentralized virtual currencies in exchange for another virtual currency or fiat currency, among others, as “exchangers.”
• House Bill B.H. 532 was introduced to use a broad definition of virtual currency as opposed to the federal definition, but the bill was killed at committee stage. 
• In June 2020, Louisiana approved House Bill 701 to enact “Virtual Currency Businesses Act” which includes definitions of virtual currency and relevant terminologies, applicability of the statute, licensure for businesses, and license application requirements. 
• Louisiana is only the second state to impose licensure, after New York. 

 

M

Undecided

• The Senate introduced a bill that would amend the state Money Transmitter Act to include digital currencies in the definition of money transmission. However, the bill did not go through. 
• In February 2019, the Maine House introduced as resolution, H.P. 673, to establish a working group on the expansion of the blockchain technology industry. The resolution did not pass.

Undecided

• The Financial Consumer Protection Act of 2018 required the Commission to make recommendations for State actions to regulate cryptocurrencies.
• The State’s Financial Consumer Protection Commission issued a report in 2017 noted the State does not require a license or registration for companies dealing with cryptocurrency. The Report recommends the legislature update the State’s Money Transmission Act to include virtual currency transmitters.
• H.B. 1301 was introduced to require certain virtual currency businesses who qualify as “marketplace facilitators” to collect “the sales and use tax on certain sales by a marketplace seller to a buyer in the state under certain circumstances.” Ultimately, the state adopted a version of H.B. 1301 that did not include these provisions related to virtual currency.

Improving

• State’s Division of Banks noted that “Massachusetts does not presently have a domestic money transmission statute” and noted only “foreign transmittal agencies” require a license from the State.
• Massachusetts recently enacted a statute (830 Mass. Code Regs. 64h.1.7)defining the dissemination of cryptocurrency as “marketplace facilitators” subject to sales or use tax collection when engaged in business in the commonwealth. 

Undecided 

• The State’s Money Transmitter Act does not explicitly include the concept of “virtual currencies,” however it does include the undefined concept of “monetary value.” The State has not issued further guidance on the matter.
• HB 4103 was enacted which amended the Michigan Penal Code for crimes involving credit cards, forgery and counterfeiting. This also built in a definition for cryptocurrency. 

Undecided 

• In February 2017, the Minnesota House of Representatives introduced a bill that would amend the Minnesota Unclaimed Property Act to explicitly include virtual currency as property. The bill died in committee
• The Minnesota Commerce Department joined “Operation Cryptosweep”,  an international crackdown on fraudulent initial coin offerings (“ICOs”) and cryptocurrency scams. The department also offered educational resources that caution consumers of the “Crypto Investment Craze“.

Undecided

•  The State requires a license for the transmission of monetary value, but the Mississippi Department of Banking and Consumer Finance has not published guidance as to its applicability on virtual currencies.

Undecided

• In a letter ruling, the Missouri Department of Revenue determined that an ATM provider “is not required to collect and remit sales or use tax upon the transfer of Bitcoins through ATM,” because sales and use taxes are imposed solely on items of tangible personal property. 
•  The Commissioner of Securities determined that offering and/or selling shares of stock in Bitcoin constituted “transacting business as an agent” in the state of Missouri. 

Leader

• Montana is notable as being the only state to not have enacted a money transmission statute. The state has amended its Electronic Contributions Act to expressly require the reporting of political contributions made “through a payment gateway,” including Bitcoin.
• Despite a lack of regulatory guidance related to blockchain or virtual currencies, Montana is the first government to take a financial stake in a Bitcoin mining operation when it granted Project Spokane, LLC, a data centre that provides blockchain security services for the Bitcoin network, a grant of $416,000.

 

N

Undecided

•  The State requires a license for the transmission of monetary value, but the Nebraska Department of Banking and Finance has not published guidance as to its applicability on virtual currencies.
• In an administrative release, the Nebraska Department of Revenue found that the term “currency” does not include Bitcoin or other virtual currency.

Improving

• Nevada became the first state to ban local governments from taxing blockchain use when it enacted Senate Bill No. 398 in June 2017. The bill adds the definition of blockchain as an electronic record, transaction, or other data which is (1) uniformly ordered; (2) redundantly maintained or processed by one or more computers or machines to guarantee the consistency or nonrepudiation of the recorded transactions or other data; and (3) validated by the use of cryptography. Under the bill, local governments are prevented from taxing blockchain use. Additionally, the bill states that “if a law requires a record to be in writing, submission of a blockchain which electronically contains the record satisfies the law”-meaning that data from a blockchain can be introduced in legal proceedings in Nevada courts.
• A bill adopted in June 2019 states that a person is a “marketplace facilitator” if that person provides, “a virtual currency that buyers are allowed or required to use to purchase the tangible personal property.” It has now been codified. 

Undecided

• New Hampshire amended its Money Transmitter statute (NH St. § 399-G:3) to exempt “persons who engage in the business of selling or issuing payment instruments or stored value solely in the form of convertible virtual currency or receive convertible virtual currency for transactions to another location” from the state’s money transmission regulation.

Improving

• The New Jersey Senate is set to consider a new bill that proposes the creation of a new, mandatory licensing framework for all cryptocurrency firms operating in the state.
• Introduced on Nov. 5, the new Senate bill, or “Digital Asset and Blockchain Technology Act,” has been sponsored by the Democratic Party senator for New Jersey’s 35th Legislative District, Nellie Pou. 
• S3132 is now pending a referral to the Senate Commerce Committee

Hostile

• New Mexico’s Money Transmitter Act does not explicitly include the concept of “virtual currencies” but the State’s Regulation and Licensing Department has issued guidance that those that exchange “virtual currency or money or any other form of monetary value or stored value” must be licensed by the FID as a money transmitter.
• In 2020, the New Mexico Senate introduced S.B. 113, which sought to create a state Blockchain Technology Task Force. The bill was postponed indefinitely. 
• The New Mexico Senate also sought to pass a joint memorial that requested the New Mexico Secretary of Information Technology convene a blockchain technology task force. This joint memorial was also postponed indefinitely. 

Leader

• New York regulates cryptocurrency through its strict BitLicense Regulations. BitLicense came into effect in 2015,  a major business license for cryptocurrencies defining rules on operating with crypto, management, administration and others.
•  In late 2016, Theo Chino, a well-known Bitcoin entrepreneur filed a petition to the Supreme Court of New York challenging the authority of the state’s Department of Financial Services to use the Bitcoin community as guinea pigs to test new banking regulations, arguing that under Article 78 of the State of New York regulations must be preceded by a law enacted by the Legislature. 
• In 2020, the New York State Department of Financial Services proposed a conditional licensing framework for virtual currency business entities so that these entities can participate in the coin listing process for licensed exchanges while their BitLicense is being evaluated. They also announced that they signed a Memorandum of Understanding (“MoU”) with the State University of New York, allowing crypto startups to visit any of the university’s 64 campuses to seek assistance in writing their application or starting their business. 
• A.B. 8783 was adopted in 2018, which creates a digital currency task force to determine the impact of cryptocurrencies on New York financial markets.
• Bill AB2213 was introduced to establish a financial technology regulatory sandbox program to test financial technology products, including “cryptocurrency business activity.” The bill remains in committee. 
• Bill A01500 was introduced in January 2019, which would allow New York state agencies to accept cryptocurrencies as a form of payment, the bill is still in the committee process 

Undecided

• North Carolina expanded its Money Transmitters Act to cover activities related to Bitcoin and other virtual currencies. The law defines virtual currency traders as money transmitters and requires they obtain a license. The law provides several exemptions, however, including for virtual currency miners as well as for software companies implementing blockchain services such as smart contract platforms, smart property, multi-signature software and non-custodial and non-hosted wallets. 
• North Carolina law also imposes additional insurance requirements on virtual currency transmitters to address “cybersecurity risks.” 

Undecided

• The State’s Department of Financial Institutions has issued guidance that they “do not consider the control or transmission of virtual currency to fall under the scope of the State’s Money Transmission Act.
• In April 2019, a bill was signed by the Governor which amends North Dakota state code related to the inclusion of electronic signatures, smart contracts, and blockchain technology.

 

O

Undecided

• In November 2018, Ohio became the first state to allow companies to pay a variety of tax burdens with cryptocurrency.
• However, the Ohio Attorney General assessed the state’s crypto payment program and announced the suspension of the cryptocurrency tax payment. This was because the program violated state law. Under  Ohio law the program is a financial transaction devise that cannot be used without first being approved by the Ohio Board of Deposit.
• The State amended its Liquor Control Law to impose an unusual ban on the use of virtual currencies for the purchase of alcohol. 

Undecided

• Bitcoin transferees are not afforded the same protections as those afforded to the transferees of money. 
• The Oklahoma legislature also determined that a seller who accepts bitcoin does not take the cryptocurrency free of an existing security interest. 
• Oklahoma has attempted to regulate cryptocurrency and proposed bills on virtual currency many times, however, each of these attempts has died in committee. 

Improving

• The State has said publicly that the Money Transmitter Act’s definition of money includes virtual currencies, including Bitcoin.
• Oregon adopted a bill that, unless authorized by the state treasurer that prohibits:
  1. the state government, as defined in ORS 174.111, from accepting payments using cryptocurrency.
  2. a candidate running for public office from accepting campaign contributions made using cryptocurrency.

 

P

Undecided

• In 2014, the State’s Department of Banking and Securities (“DoBS”) provided informal guidance that “virtual currencies like Bitcoin” are not “money” and therefore transmission of them does not require a license.
• In January 2019, the DoBS published guidance clarifying that, generally, virtual currency trading platforms are not money transmitters under state law. Similarly, entities operating virtual currency kiosks, ATMs, and vending machines are not considered money transmitters because “there is no transfer of money to any third party.”
•  Pennsylvania designated April 30, 2019, as “Pennsylvania Health Care Information Technology Awareness Day” and recognized that blockchain technology is a driver of spending growth.

 

R

Undecided 

• A bill adopted in March 2019 states that a person is a “marketplace facilitator” if that person provides, “a virtual currency that buyers are allowed or required to use to purchase products from the seller.”
• Another bill adopted on July 15, 2019 adds virtual currency to the existing electronic money transmission and sale of check licenses and would add additionally regulatory provisions to simplify and clarify related licensing 

 

S

Hostile

• The State has not provided any guidance as to the applicability of its regulations on virtual currencies.
• South Carolina had proposed to add “virtual currency” to its unclaimed property act. The bill died in committee. 

Undecided

• The State’s Department of Labor and Regulation has not issued guidance as to their applicability on virtual currencies.
• The state defines blockchain technology as “technology that uses a distributed, shared, and replicated ledger, either public or private, with or without permission, or driven with or without tokenized crypto economics where the data on the ledger is protected with cryptography and is immutable and auditable.” The terms “electronic record” and “electronic signature” include a record or signature secured through blockchain technology.

 

T

Improving

• The state has issued guidance clarifying that it does not consider virtual currency to be money under its Money Transmitter Act and therefore, no license is required.
• According to Tennessee’s Uniform Unclaimed Property Act, “property” includes virtual currency
• On April 9, 2018, Governor Haslam signed Tennessee Senate Bill S.B. 2508, which prohibits trustees of any defined contribution plan or related investment vehicle established as a health benefit by the state insurance company from investing in any cryptocurrency.
• Tennessee introduced various revised provisions of the Revised Tennessee Captive Insurance Act, allowing captive insurance companies to receive payments of premium in cryptocurrency, authorize the payment of claims in cryptocurrency and hold cryptocurrency as surplus for the payment of future claims. The bill also includes “blockchain” in the cryptocurrency definition related to the Revised Tennessee Captive Insurance Act

Leader

• Texas was the first state to release an official position on bitcoin with Memorandum 1037 clarifying that no money transmitter’s license is required to sell Bitcoin. 
• The memo states that Bitcoin and other virtual currencies will not be treated as legal money in Texas.
• On September 1, 2019, “digital currency” was added to the definition of funds for purposes of money laundering. Law enforcement is therefore able to pursue digital currencies in an effort to combat money laundering.

 

U

• Utah adopted the “Blockchain Technology Act,” which exempts a person who facilitates the creation, exchange, or sale of certain blockchain technology-related products from Title 7, Chapter 25, Money Transmitter Act creates a legislative task force to study the potential applications of blockchain technology to government services.”
• Virtual currency is explicitly included in the definition of “property” in Utah’s Revised Uniform Unclaimed Property Act.
• Adopted in April 2019, a person or business will be a “marketplace facilitator” for purposes of state sales tax law if that person “provides a virtual currency for a purchaser to use to purchase tangible personal property, a product transferred electronically, or service offered for sale.”

 

V

Improving

• In 2017 Vermont amended its Money Transmitter Law to allow companies to hold virtual currency as a permissible investment. Digital currency businesses with money transmitter licenses are required to hold a certain amount of permissible investments and this law makes it clear that virtual currency counts as a permissible investment.
• In 2019, a bill was adopted relating to education finance, which defines a “marketplace facilitator” as a person or business who provides “a virtual currency that purchasers are allowed or required to use to purchase products from sellers.”
• Virtual currency is explicitly included in the definition of “property” in Vermont’s Revised Uniform Unclaimed Property Act. 

Undecided

• The Virginia Bureau of Financial Institutions requires companies that deal in virtual currencies to obtain a money transmission license
• Many proposals related to blockchain technology were proposed throughout 2018 and 2019, but all failed to pass.
• For purposes of sales tax collection, the “roviding a virtual currency that buyers are allowed or required to use to purchase products from the seller” qualifies one as a “marketplace facilitator.”

 

W

Undecided

• The state includes virtual currency within its definition of money transmission in its Uniform Money Services Act.
• In 2017, the state adopted more stringent regulations of virtual currency, passing Senate Bill 5031. The bill places virtual currency exchange operators under the state’s money transmitter rules and requires them to comply with the same licensing requirements as traditional money transmitters.
•  Companies wishing to transmit money for Washington residents in digital currency form should contact Washington’s Department of Financial Institution to determine whether licensure is required.
• The state’s regulatory scheme has been the subject of much criticism from within the virtual currency industry and has caused a number of popular exchanges, including Poloniex, Bitstamp, Kraken, and Bitfinex to leave the state over the costs associated with complying with Washington’s licensing requirements.
• In 2019, the Washington Senate passed a bill that recognizes defines “Blockchain” and “distributed ledger technology” and “the validity of distributed ledger technology.”
• For purposes of sales tax collection, “providing a virtual currency that buyers are allowed or required to use to purchase products from the seller” qualifies one as a “marketplace facilitator.” 
• In 2019, the Washington Department of Revenue announced it will not accept bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies as taxes, and that sellers who accept bitcoin must either convert it into U.S. dollars at the time of sale or afterwards for tax purposes.
• Washington Department of Revenue also announced a tax on bitcoin mining. The tax owed on block rewards and transaction fees is based on the value of the bitcoin at the time it is obtained by the miner
• In  2020, the State of Washington Securities Division found in a consent order that the offer and sale of RHOCs, ERC-20 tokens that are issued and distributed on the Ethereum Blockchain using ERC20 protocol, constitute an offer and sale of a security as defined by state law. In Washington, it is prohibited to offer and/or sell securities while not being registered as a securities salesperson or broker-dealer, and those who violate this rule are subject to fines.

Undecided

• West Virginia explicitly prohibits the laundering of value through cryptocurrencies.
• In respect of taxation, a person is a “marketplace facilitator” if that person provides, “a virtual currency that buyers are allowed or required to use to purchase products from the seller.” 

Undecided

• Wisconsin has refused to issue money transmitter licenses to virtual currency businesses. Companies dealing with virtual currency are required to agree that they will not use the virtual currency to transmit money. 
• The State has also made it clear that the purchases of taxable goods or services made with virtual currencies are subject to State sales tax, just like any other purchase, but that the virtual currency itself is not subject to sales tax because they are not tangible personal property.
• A bill adopted in 2019, states that the “providing a virtual currency used to purchase products from the marketplace seller” deems a person a “marketplace provider” who might need to collect sales tax.

Leader

• Wyoming is one of the most crypto-friendly jurisdictions in the United States.
• H.B. 70, known as the “Utility Token Bill” was signed into law. The Bill exempts “Utility Tokens” from the state’s securities laws provided the issued token and its issuer meet the following requirements:

1. The developer or seller of the token, or the registered agent of the developer or seller, files a notice of intent with the secretary of state
2. The purpose of the token is for a consumptive purpose, which shall only be exchangeable for, or provided for the receipt of, goods, services or content, including rights of access to goods, services or content; and
3. The developer or seller of the token did not sell the token to the initial buyer as a financial investment.

• H.B. 70’s liberal approach is at odds with recent statements from the Federal Securities and Exchange Commission which has stated a belief that all tokens are likely securities.
• Wyoming passed H.B. 27, which established a Committee on Blockchain, Financial Technology and Digital Innovation Technology. In 2020, The Wyoming Legislature announced the formation of “A Select Committee on Blockchain,” and the committee had its first meeting on May 22, 2020, via video conference. 
• The Wyoming Legislature also passed SB 72, known as the Revisor’s Bill, which is an omnibus bill that in part approved the appointment of liaisons from Wyoming’s executive branch to develop and introduce legislation as necessary to promote blockchain, financial technology and digital innovation in Wyoming. 

Need advice?
Contact us to discuss your requirements and how we can help