Bitlicense (Still) Won’t Apply To Miners Or Developers

Coindesk recently ran this article, which quotes a recent speech given by New York Superintendent of Financial Services Benjamin Lawsky in which he specifically stated that virtual currency miners and software developers would generally not need a license under proposed regulations.

I wrote about BitLicense last summer. In response, I received a considerable amount of hate mail for my statement that the rules would not have an effect on the vast majority of virtual currency users. Several months later, I stand by my statement.

While Lawsky’s comments may seem like a breath of fresh air and a small victory for the community, nothing in the proposed rules (which have been publicly available since July) indicates that they would apply to miners or developers. To the contrary, their purpose is to regulate companies that hold virtual currencies on behalf of others or create them for distribution to the public. The proposed rules are similar to New York banking rules because exchanges and wallet services function in much the same way as banks and are subject to many of the same risks, both to their customers and to the public at large.

For my own part, I am dismayed (if not embarrassed) by the reaction of the virtual currency community to BitLicense. Did anyone besides me actually read the proposed rules? I wouldn’t be the first one in line to demand more regulation, but I also cringe when I see cryptocurrency advocates aggressively calling for more time to register their objections to proposed rules that actually aren’t there, or demanding to see immaterial background research, or personally insulting and /or questioning the motives of public servants like Lawsky.

If we are going to be taken seriously as an industry, then we need to do a better job choosing the battles that we fight and crafting strategies to fight them. I keep hearing that amateur hour in digital currencies is over, so why are the amateurs still hanging around?