Title: Bitcoin and Cryptocurrency Laws in All 50 States (plus DC & Puerto Rico)
Headings: Bitcoin and Cryptocurrency Laws in All 50 States (plus DC & Puerto Rico)
Bitcoin and Cryptocurrency Laws in All 50 States (plus DC & Puerto Rico)
Table of Contents
How States Regulate Cryptocurrency Companies
America’s Fragmented Landscape
Crypto Pioneers
People’s Defenders
Uniform Regulation of Virtual-Currency Businesses Act
Everybody Else
Crypto Regulations State by State
Alabama – Idaho
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois – Missouri
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana – Pennsylvania
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico – Wyoming
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Christopher Casper
Also on CoinIQ
CryptocurrencyNewsfeed.com Review: Focused …
The Best Crypto Tools and Resources for …
One of the Oldest and Most Popular Trackers
A Comprehensive List of Cryptocurrency …
STO Vs. ICO: What You Need to Know
Security Token Offerings (STO) …

Content: Arkansas
Arkansas’s Money Services Act (PDF) does not mention virtual currency and the Arkansas State Bank Department has not published any guidelines. California
California’s Money Transmission Act does not define virtual currency and the state’s Department of Business Oversight (DBO)has not published any guidelines. However, the DBO had been evaluating cryptocurrencies as early as 2014 when it issued an advisory warning to consumers and investors that the category was not regulated. The following year the DBO issued a statement clarifying that Coinbase was not regulated in California because the DBO “has not decided whether to regulate virtual currency transactions.” That was the last statement from the DBO on virtual currencies
The Virtual Currency Act, Assembly Bill 1123, used the URVCBA framework to define eligibility, application requirements, and reporting requirements for companies handling virtual currencies. The legislation failed to make it out of committee. Colorado
Colorado’s money transmitter regulations do not define virtual currency and the Colorado Division of Banking has not published any guidelines. An attempt to address this lack of clarity, Colorado House Bill 18-1220, would have described when wallet providers, traders and exchanges fall under the definition of money transmitters as well as clarified when altcoins fall under securities regulations. The bill died in the Colorado Senate. Connecticut
Public Act 15-53, passed in 2015, added virtual currencies to the criteria for regulation as a money transmitter in Connecticut.