Bitcoin History
Jurisdictions Proposed Laws & Regulations Enacted Laws & Regulations Laws & Regulations Not Passed Licensing Requirements for Digital Currency Transmission
Alabama  None  HB 215: Passed Senate and House and delivered to Governor on 5/17/2017; effective as of 8/1/2017.
Key Impact: This bill creates a money transmission license in Alabama, and anyone transmitting digital currency will be subject to that licensing requirement. The bill defines “monetary value” as “a medium of exchange, including virtual or fiat currencies, whether or not redeemable in money.”
HB 138: Passed and delivered to Governor on 5/11/2017; effective as of 1/1/2018.
Key Impact: Regulates fiduciary management of digital property, including digital currency.
 HB 318: Not passed; session adjourned 5/18/2020.
Key Impact: Would have exempted virtual currency, as defined in HB 318, from ad valorem tax.
HB 177: Not passed; session adjourned 5/18/2020.
Key Impact: Would have proposed a constitutional amendment to the Constitution of Alabama 1901 to exempt virtual currency from ad valorem tax.
HB 418: Not passed; session adjourned 5/18/2020.
Key Impact: Would have added to the state sales and use tax laws a definition of “marketplace facilitator” and a provision that it includes a person providing virtual currency that purchasers are allowed or required to use to purchase products from a marketplace seller.
 A money transmitter license is required. A license is required for selling or issuing payment instruments, stored value, or receiving money or monetary value for transmission. “Monetary value” means a medium of exchange, including virtual or fiat currencies, whether or not redeemable in money.
Ala. Code § 8-7A-2; Ala. Code § 8-7A-5
Alaska  None.  HB 108:Signed into law on 10/6/2017; effective as of 10/31/2017
Key Impact: Regulates fiduciary management of digital property, including digital currency.
 HB 180:Not passed; session adjourned on 5/13/2018.
Key Impact: Would have defined virtual currency and required those who transmit digital currency to obtain a money transmitter license.
SB 152: Labor & Commerce Committee meeting canceled on 4/9/2016.
Key Impact: A money transmitter license would have been required for anyone engaged in “virtual currency business activity,” meaning (1) receiving virtual currency for transmission; (2) transmitting virtual currency; (3) securing, storing, holding, or maintaining custody or control of virtual currency on behalf of others; (4) buying and selling virtual currency as or through a third party; (5) performing retail conversion services, including the conversion or exchange of fiat currency or other value into virtual currency, the conversion or exchange of virtual currency into fiat currency or other value, or the conversion or exchange of one form of virtual currency into another form of virtual currency;or (6) controlling, administering, or issuing virtual currency.
 The Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development, Division of Banking and Securities, does not license digital currency transmitters but enters into Limited License Agreements with those involved with digital currency transmission. See Limited License Agreement Orders for additional information.
Arizona  None.  HB 2601:Signed by Governor on 4/12/2018; effective 8/3/2018.
Key Impact: Defines and addresses “crowdfunding”and “virtual coins” within the context of the sale of securities.
HB 2602:Signed by Governor on 4/12/2018; effective 8/3/2018.
Key Impact: Prohibits cities and towns from restricting running a node on blockchain technology.
SB 1413: Effective as of 8/5/2016.
Key Impact: Regulates fiduciary management of digital assets, including digital currency.
 HB 2702
Key Impact: Would have added to the state sales and use tax laws a definition of “marketplace facilitator” and a provision that it includes a person providing virtual currency that purchasers are allowed or required to use to purchase products from a marketplace seller.
SB 1145:Not passed; session adjourned 5/4/2018.
Key Impact: Would have amended income tax rules re digital currency.
SB 1091:Vetoed by the Governor on 5/16/2018.
Key Impact: Would have allowed tax payments in the form of digital currency.
 Silent.
Arkansas  None.  SB 576: Passed on 4/10/19; effective as of 7/31/2017.
Key Impact: Adds to the state sales and use tax laws a definition of “marketplace facilitator”and a provision that it includes a person providing virtual currency that purchasers are allowed or required to use to purchase products from a marketplace seller.
HB 2253: Effective 7/31/2017.
Key Impact: This bill regulates the fiduciary management of digital property, including digital currency.
 None.  Silent.
California  AB 2150
Key Impact: Would provide that issuing, transferring, or storing a virtual currency on behalf of a consumer is money transmission.
 SB 82: Signed by Governor on 6/27/2019; effective as of 6/27/2019.
Key Impact: Establishes an Office of Digital Innovation within the Government Operations Agency.
AB 147: Signed by Governor on 4/25/2019; effective 4/25/2019.
Key Impact: Adds to the state sales and use tax laws a definition of “marketplace facilitator”and a provision that it includes a person providing virtual currency that purchasers are allowed or required to use to purchase products from a marketplace seller.
Assembly Bill No. 129: Repealed Cal. Corp. Code § 107 as of 1/1/2015.
Key Impact: Repealed Cal. Corp. Code § 107, which prohibited issuing or circulating as money anything but lawful money of the United States.
Bill Number SB 843: Amended Cal. Pen. Code § 320.6, effective as of 6/27/2016.
Key Impact: A raffle ticket cannot be sold in exchange for Bitcoin or any other cryptocurrency.
Assembly Bill 691: Effective as of 1/1/2017.
Key Impact: Regulates fiduciary management of digital assets, including digital currency.
 SB 741: Died on 6/13/17; returned to Secretary of Senate pursuant to Joint Rule 56 on 2/01/19.
Key Impact: Would have prohibited charitable raffles from selling raffle tickets in exchange for digital currency.
Virtual Currency Act, AB-1123: Died on 1/31/2018; filed with Chief Clerk pursuant to Joint Rule 56 on 2/1/2018.
Key Impact: Would have amended California’s Money Transmission Act to create a license for “virtual currency business” and limit the definition of “virtual currency business” to “maintaining full custody or control of virtual currency in this state on behalf of others.”
AB-1326 Virtual currency:From Senate committee without further action on 11/30/2016.
Key Impact: Bill proposed a Digital Currency Business Enrollment Program for all digital currency businesses, defined as businesses offering or providing the service of storing, transmitting, exchanging, or issuing digital currency. Persons engaged in “money transmission” and digital currency business would have had to obtain both a money transmitter license and be enrolled in the program.
AB 1489: Died pursuant to Art. IV, Sec. 10(c) of the Constitution. on 1/3/2020.
Key Impact: Would have enacted the Uniform Regulation of Virtual-Currency Business Act.
AB 953: Bill amended as a vehicle for zoning legislation, stripping out digital currency provisions, 1/6/2020.
Key Impact: Would have allowed a city or county government to determine and implement a method for cannabis licensees to remit a city of county cannabis license tax using stablecoins.
 The Department of Business Oversight has not decided whether to regulate digital currency transmission under California’s Money Transmission Act.
DBO Commissioner Statement re Coinbase
Colorado  None.  HB 1240: Signed by Governor on 5/23/2019; effective (in part)as of 10/1/2019.
Key Impact: Adds to the state sales and use tax laws a definition of “marketplace facilitator”and a provision that it includes a person providing virtual currency that purchasers are allowed or required to use to purchase products from a marketplace seller.
SB 88: Effective as of 7/1/2020.
Key Impact: Establishes a Revised Uniform Unclaimed Property Act, which includes virtual currencies under its definition of “property.”
SB 88: Effective as of 8/10/2016.
Key Impact: Regulates fiduciary management of digital assets, including digital currency.
 SB 140
Key Impact: Would have allowed an individual taxpayer or corporation to claim a state income tax deduction on gains, to the extent included in federal taxable income, from the sale or exchange of virtual currency for other than cash or cash equivalents, up to $600 per sale or exchange, for income tax years commencing on or after January 1, 2020.
HB18-1220:Senate Committee on Business, Labor & Technology Postponed Indefinitely on 4/30/2018.
Key Impact: Would have subjected people who offer cryptocurrency wallets, buy or sell cryptocurrencies, or exchange cryptocurrency with fiat currency to regulation under the Money Transmitters Act.
HB18-1426:Senate Third Reading Lost on 5/9/2018.
Key Impact: The bill would have defined ‘open blockchain token’ and exempted certain open blockchain tokens from the definition of ‘security’ for purposes of the ‘Colorado Securities Act’.
SB18-277:Senate Third Reading Lost on 5/7/2018.
Key Impact: The bill would have exempted the transmission of virtual currency from regulation under the Colorado ‘Money Transmitters Act’.
 License may be required if digital currency exchange allows transactions between fiat and digital currencies. If no fiat currency is involved, license is not required.
Interim Regulatory Guidance – Cryptocurrency and the Colorado Money Transmitters Act
Connecticut  None.  HB 6800, codified at Conn. Gen. Stat. § 36a-595 to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 36a-612: Effective as of 10/1/2015.
Key Impact: Defines “virtual currency” and requires a money transmitter license for anyone transmitting monetary value in the form of virtual currency.
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 36a-596; Conn. Gen. Stat. § 36a-597
HB 5606: Effective as of 10/1/2016.
Key Impact: Regulates fiduciary management of digital assets, including digital currency.
HB 7141, codified at Conn. Gen. Stat. § 36a-603: Effective as of 10/1/2017.
Key Impact: Amends the permissible investment requirements for those engaging in the transmission of digital currency by requiring that they hold at all times digital currency “of the same type and amount owed or obligated to such other person.”
 HB 6995
Key Impact: Would have required a money transmission business applying for renewal to provide a statement describing the type of money transaction business that would be conducted and whether such money transmission would include the transmission of monetary value in the form of virtual currency.
SB 1137
Key Impact: Would have created a work group on blockchain matters concerning Connecticut and include virtual currency in its definition of blockchain.
SB 1138
Key Impact: Would have allowed Connecticut credit unions to provide digital wallet services.
HB 5496: Not passed; session adjourned 5/9/2018.
Key Impact: Would have enacted the Uniform Regulation of Virtual-Currency Business Act.
HB 5001: Not passed; session adjourned 5/9/2018.
Key Impact: Would have amended the general statutes to establish a fee to transfer or trade digital currency in Connecticut.
SB 513: Not passed; session adjourned 5/9/2018.
Key Impact: Was a bill to study the impact that digital currency, blockchain and smart contracts have on state law and businesses.
 A money transmitter license is required when transmitting digital currency.
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 36a-596; Conn. Gen. Stat. § 36a-597
For money transmitter licensing requirements, see the Connecticut Money Transmitter Licensing Chart.
Delaware  None.  HB 345: Effective as of 1/1/2015.
Key Impact: Regulates fiduciary management of digital assets, including digital currency.
 None.  Silent.
District of Columbia  B 225
Key impact: Would establish a Revised Uniform Unclaimed Property Act, which would include virtual currencies under its definition of “property.”
HB 22-1099
Key Impact: This bill would regulate fiduciary management of digital property, including digital currency.
 None.  None.  Silent.
Florida  None  SB 1024: Approved by Governor on 5/23/2019; effective as of 5/23/2019.
Key Impact: Establishes the Florida Blockchain Task Force within the Department of Financial Services.
HB 1379: Signed by Governor on 6/23/2017; effective as of 7/1/2017.
Key Impact: Defines “virtual currency”for purposes of Florida’s Money Laundering Act and expands the Act to prohibit laundering virtual currency. Virtual currency is defined 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.”
SB 494: Effective as of 7/1/2016.
Key Impact: Regulates fiduciary management of digital assets, including digital currency.
 SB 1112: Died on 5/3/2019.
Key Impact: Would have added to the state sales and use tax laws a definition of “marketplace provider” and a provision that it includes a person providing virtual currency that purchasers are allowed or required to use to purchase products from a marketplace seller.
HB 735: Tabled 5/1/2019; companion bill SB 1024 passed.
Key Impact: Would have established the Florida Blockchain Working Group in the Department of Management Services, to expand the blockchain industry in the state.
 In January of 2019, a Florida appellate court ruled that state money transmitter laws apply to the sale of digital currencies.
See State v. Espinoza, No. 3D16-1860, 2019 BL 29359 (Fla. 3d DCA Jan. 30, 2019).
For interpretive letters discussing digital currency and money transmission licensing, see Florida Money Transmission Licensing Guidance.
Georgia  None.  SB 301: Signed by Governor on 5/8/2018.
Key Impact: This bill regulates the fiduciary management of digital property, including digital currency.
HB 811, codified at Ga. Code § 7-1-680 to Ga. Code § 7-1-698: Effective 7/1/2016.
Key Impact: Defines “virtual currency” and requires a money transmitter license for anyone engaged in the business of receiving monetary value for transmission or transmitting monetary value within the United States or to locations abroad by any and all means, including, but not limited to, an order, wire, facsimile, or electronic transfer. Under the amended law, “virtual currency” will be defined as a “digital representation of monetary value.”
The Department of Banking and Finance is authorized to enact rules and regulations covering money transmission involving digital currency. Ga. Code § 7-1-690
 SB 464: Not passed; session adjourned 3/29/2018.
Key Impact: This bill would have allowed for the payment of state taxes and license fees with digital currency.
 The Georgia Department of Banking and Finance has informed Bloomberg BNA that a Seller of Payment Instruments license is required for the transmission of digital currency. See the GA Seller of Payment Instruments License Description for more information on this license.
“Virtual currency”is defined as “digital representation of monetary value that does not have legal tender status as recognized by the United States government.” The Department of Banking and Finance is authorized to enact rules and regulations that apply solely to persons engaged in money transmission involving virtual currency.
O.C.G.A. § 7-1-680; O.C.G.A. § 7-1-690
Hawaii  None  SB 2298: Effective as of 7/1/2016.
Key Impact: Regulates fiduciary management of digital assets, including digital currency.
 HB 1481: Not passed; session adjourned 5/3/2018.
Key Impact: Bill would have established a blockchain technology and digital currency working group.
SB 2225: Not passed; session adjourned 5/3/2018.
Key Impact: Would have defined the transmission of digital currency as money transmission.
SB 2129: Not passed; session adjourned 5/3/2018.
Key Impact: Would have adopted the Uniform Regulation of Virtual Currency Businesses Act and codified the Act into law.
SB 2853: Not passed; session adjourned 5/3/2018.
Key Impact: Defined “virtual currency” within the Money Transmitters Act. Clarified that the permissible investment requirements for money transmitter licensees shall not apply to money transmissions of virtual currency.
HB 2257 & SB 3082: Not passed; session adjourned 5/3/2018.
Key Impact: Adopted the Uniform Regulation of Virtual Currency Businesses Act and codified the Act. Extended the money transmitters act to expressly apply to persons engaged in the transmission of digital currency. Required licensees dealing with digital currency to provide a warning to consumers prior to entering into an agreement with them.
HCR 41 & SCR 38: Not passed; session adjourned 5/3/2018.
Key Impact: Requested the auditor to conduct a sunrise analysis of the regulation of digital currency business activities.
*Note: Although SB 949 passed, it originally contained language defining “decentralized virtual currency” and tried to exclude the selling, issuing or receiving of such virtual currency from money transmission licensing. That language was not included in the final version of the bill. See SB 949 Proposed.
SB 2594: Not passed, session adjourned 5/7/2020.
Key Impact: Would have classified digital assets under the Uniform Commercial Code, specified the manner of perfecting a security interest in digital assets, authorize banks to hold digital assets in their custody, and authorize courts to hear claims relating to digital assets.
SB 1364: Not passed, session adjourned 5/7/2020.
Key Impact: Would have allowed money transmitter licensees to hold virtual currencies to satisfy their permissible investment requirements. Would also have required money transmitters holding virtual currency on behalf of others to provide a third-party security audit of all electronic information and data systems acceptable to the commissioner. Would also have required money transmitters to send a specific notice warning customers about the dangers of investing in virtual currencies, and to obtain their acknowledgement.
SB 250 & HB 70:Not passed, session adjourned 5/7/2020.
Key Impact: Would have established a Uniform Regulation of Virtual Currency Businesses Act, which includes a licensing requirement.
 According to NMLS, a money transmitter license is required when transmitting digital currency.*
NMLS Hawaii Money Transmitter License Description; NMLS Hawaii Money Transmitter License Company New Application Checklist
For money transmitter licensing requirements, see the Hawaii Money Transmitter Licensing Chart
*Note: The Division of Financial Institutions has not licensed any crypto-currency companies to do Bitcoin exchanges, wallets or “mining”activity. See the Bitcoin Warning for more information.
Idaho  None.  HB 259: Signed by Governor on 4/9/2019; effective as of 6/1/2019.
Key Impact: Adds to the state sales and use tax laws a definition of “marketplace facilitator”and a provision that it includes a person providing virtual currency that purchasers are allowed or required to use to purchase products from a marketplace seller.
SB 1303: Effective as of 7/1/2016.
Key Impact: Regulates fiduciary management of digital assets, including digital currency.
 None.  A digital currency exchanger must have a money transmitter license if it accepts legal tender for later delivery to a third party in association with the purchase of a digital currency.
Agency Comments – Idaho Money Transmitters Section
For money transmitter licensing requirements, see the Idaho Money Transmitter Licensing Chart.
For interpretive letters discussing digital currency and money transmission licensing, see Idaho Money Transmission Licensing Guidance.
Illinois  None  SB 1464: Approved by Governor on 8/23/2019; effective as of 1/1/2020.
Key Impact: Would define“virtual currency” as a digital representation of value used as a medium of exchange, unit of account, or store of value, which does not have legal tender status recognized by the United States.
HB 2540: Passed on 8/9/2019; effective as of 6/1/2019.
Key Impact: Creates the Blockchain Business Development Act. Provides for the creation and regulation of personal information protection companies. Provides for the creation and regulation of blockchain-based limited liability companies as businesses that utilize blockchain technology for a material portion of their business activities.
SB 1413: Effective as of 8/12/2016.
Key Impact: Regulates fiduciary management of digital assets, including digital currency.
 HB 5335
Key Impact: Would have allowed state tax payments in the form of digital currency.
SB 3153 & SB 4573: Not passed, session adjourned 5/31/2020
Key Impact: Would have amended the Revised Uniform Unclaimed Property Act to provide that virtual currency is presumed abandoned if it is unclaimed by the apparent owner 5 years after the last indication of interest in the property; provide that a provision regarding when a tax-deferred retirement account is presumed abandoned also applies to a tax-exempt retirement account. Would have provided that property held in a pension account or retirement account that qualifies for tax deferral or tax exemption may be presumed abandoned under several circumstances, and that a business association that has no reportable property must report to the State Treasurer in certain situations.
 The Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation (IDFPR) issued final regulatory guidance on 6/13/2017 that a money transmitter license is required for transactions that involve both digital currency and sovereign currency, but transactions that only involve digital currency do not require a money transmitter license because digital currency does not meet the definition of “money” under 205 Ill. Comp. Stat. § 657/5. The guidance also provides a definition of digital currency, citing the Uniform law Commission Draft Regulation of Virtual Currency Business Act (April 14, 2017). For more information, see the Digital Currency Regulatory Guidance.
For additional guidance discussing digital currency and money transmission licensing, see Illinois Money Transmission Licensing Guidance.
Indiana  None  S. Res. 9: Passed on 2/11/2019.
Key Impact: urges the creation of a committee to study the enactment of the Uniform Regulation of Virtual Currency Businesses Act or other virtual currency regulation.
SB 253: Effective as of 7/1/2016.
Key Impact: Regulates fiduciary management of digital assets, including digital currency.
 HB 1683
Key Impact: Would have allowed people to pay taxes using approved virtual currencies.
HB 1352:Not passed, session adjourned 4/28/2019
Key Impact: Would have added to the state sales and use tax laws a definition of “marketplace facilitator”and a provision that it includes a person providing virtual currency that purchasers are allowed or required to use to purchase products from a marketplace seller.
 A money transmitter license is not required when transmitting virtual currency. However, if a transaction includes sovereign currency, a money transmitter license may be required.
Indiana DFI generally recognizes that a money transmitter license is not required for “a fiat or virtual currency exchange, as long as the consumer is strictly buying or selling the currency and the consumer does not have the ability to send fiat currency to another consumer.”
Additionally, “money” is defined as a “fiat currency, but does not currently include virtual currency.”
IN-DFI money Transmitter License New Application Checklist
Iowa  None.  SF 333: Effective as of 7/1/2017.
Key Impact: Regulates fiduciary management of digital property, including digital currency.
 SF 2079: Not passed, session adjourned 6/14/2020
Key Impact: Would have prohibited state and political subdivisions of the state from accepting payment in the form of digital currency.
HF 240: Not passed, session adjourned 6/14/2020
Key Impact: Would have provided exemptions for virtual currency from certain security and money transmission regulations.
 Silent.
Kansas  None  SB 63: Effective as of 7/1/2017.
Key Impact: Regulates fiduciary management of digital property, including digital currency.
 SB 22:
Key Impact: Would have added to the state sales and use tax laws a definition of “marketplace facilitator” and a provision that it included a person providing virtual currency that purchasers would be allowed or required to use to purchase products from a marketplace seller.
HB 2657: Died in committee 5/21/2020
Key Impact: Would have required marketplace facilitators to collect and remit sales and compensating use tax.
SB 399: Died in committee 5/21/2020
Key Impact: Would have added to the state sales and use tax laws a definition of “marketplace facilitator”and a provision that it includes a person providing virtual currency that purchasers are allowed or required to use to purchase products from a marketplace seller.
 A money transmitter license is not required when transmitting a decentralized digital currency. However, if the transmission of digital currency includes the involvement of sovereign currency, a money transmitter license may be required.
Regulatory Treatment of Virtual Currencies Under the Kansas Money Transmitter Act
For money transmitter licensing requirements, see the Kansas Money Transmitter Licensing Chart
For additional guidance discussing digital currency and money transmission licensing, see Kansas Money Transmission Licensing Guidance.
Kentucky  None  HB 204: Signed by Governor on 3/26/2019; Effective as of 6/26/2019.
Key Impact: Would have required holders of abandoned virtual currency to liquidate it and remit the proceeds to the administrator within 90 days of filing a report, and denied the owner of the currency any recourse against the holder or administrator to recover it.
HB 354: Signed by the Governor on 3/26/2019, effective as of 3/26/2019.
Key Impact: Adds to the state sales and use tax laws a definition of “marketplace provider”and a provision that it includes a person providing virtual currency that purchasers are allowed or required to use to purchase products from a marketplace seller.
 HB 170: Not passed; withdrawn.
Key Impact: Would have required holders of abandoned virtual currency to liquidate it and remit the proceeds to the administrator within 90 days of filing a report, and would deny the owner of the currency any recourse against the holder or administrator to recover it.
HB 416: Died in committee 5/21/2020
Key Impact: Would have provided a virtual currency that purchasers are allowed or required to use to purchase personal property, a product transferred electronically, or service offered for sale.
HB 26 & HB 54: Not passed, session adjourned 4/15/2020; HB 358: Withdrawn 2/26/2020
Key Impact: Would have added to the state sales and use tax laws a definition of “marketplace provider” and a provision that it includes a person providing virtual currency that purchasers are allowed or required to use to purchase products from a marketplace seller.
 Silent.
Louisiana  None  HR 146: Passed on 5/30/2019; effective as of 8/1/2019.
Key Impact: Requests that the Office of Financial Institutions study the licensure and regulation of virtual currency businesses.
SB 461: Effective as of 8/1/2014.
Key Impact: Regulates fiduciary management of digital assets, including digital currency.
HB 701: Signed by governor 6/13/2020; effective 8/1/2020
Key Impact: Would provide for the licensing and regulation of virtual currency businesses.
 HB 532
Key Impact: Would have created a regulatory structure for virtual currency, which would require a person to obtain a license prior to engaging in virtual currency business.
 Certain digital currency exchangers are required to obtain a money transmitter license. For additional information see the Consumer and Investor Advisory on Virtual Currency.
For money transmitter licensing requirements, see the Louisiana Money Transmitter Licensing Chart.
Maine  SP 599
Key impact: Would revise consumer credit protection laws to include “digital currencies”in the definition of “money transmission.”.
 LD 846: Signed by Governor on 4/4/2018.
Key Impact: This bill regulates the fiduciary management of digital property, including digital currency.
 HP 1064: Failed on 5/30/2019.
Key impact: Would have added to the state sales and use tax laws a definition of “marketplace facilitator” and a provision that it included a person providing virtual currency that purchasers were allowed or required to use to purchase products from a marketplace seller.
 Silent.
Maryland  None  HB 1301: Passed on 05/25/2019; effective as of 10/1/2019.
Key Impact: Adds to the state sales and use tax laws a definition of “marketplace facilitator”and a provision that it includes a person providing virtual currency that purchasers are allowed or required to use to purchase products from a marketplace seller.
HB 1634: Effective as of 10/1/2018.
Key Impact: Establishes that the Maryland Financial Consumer Protection Commission shall study cryptocurrencies, initial coin offerings, cryptocurrency exchanges and other blockchain technologies and include regulatory recommendations in its 2018 report.
HB 507: Effective as of 10/1/2016.
Key Impact: Regulates fiduciary management of digital assets, including digital currency.
 HB 1127
Key Impact: Would have established a Financial Consumer Protection Act of 2019, which in relevant part would create a licensing regime for virtual currency exchange services, and require money transmitters to maintain certain amounts of virtual currency under certain circumstances.
SB 728: Vetoed by Governor on 5/24/2019.
Key Impact: Would have added to the state sales and use tax laws a definition of “marketplace facilitator” and a provision that it included a person providing virtual currency that purchasers were allowed or required to use to purchase products from a marketplace seller.
SB 786: Not passed, session adjourned 3/16/2020
Key Impact: Would have established a Financial Consumer Protection Act of 2019, which in relevant part would create a licensing regime for virtual currency exchange services, and require money transmitters to maintain certain amounts of virtual currency under certain circumstances.
 The Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation does not regulate digital currency transmitters, including under the Maryland Money Transmission Act.
Virtual Currencies: Risks for Buying, Selling, Transacting, and Investing
Massachusetts  None.  HB 4000; Signed (in part) by Governor on 7/31/2019.
Key Impact: Added to the state sales and use tax laws a definition of “marketplace facilitator” and a provision that it includes a person providing virtual currency that purchasers are allowed or required to use to purchase products from a marketplace seller.
 None.  Silent. However, the Secretary of Massachusetts issued a warning about digital currencies, stating that they are “not regular money”and are “unregulated.” *
*Note: For interpretive letters discussing digital currency and money transmission licensing, see Massachusetts Money Transmission Licensing Guidance.
Michigan  None.  HB 4103, HB 4105 & HB 4107: Approved by Governor on 12/31/2019; effective as of 5/1/2020.
Key Impact: Add a definition for “cryptocurrency” under the Michigan Penal Code’s definition of money instrument.
HB 6253: Passed 12/5/2018; effective as of 12/5/2018.
Key Impact: Amends the Michigan Penal Code by defining “cryptocurrency” and including it in the definition of “money or personal property” in the section defining the crime of embezzlement.
HB 6254: Passed 12/5/2018; effective as of 12/5/2018.
Key Impact: Amends the Michigan Penal Code by defining “cryptocurrency” and including it in the definition of “monetary instrument” in the sections defining crimes involving money laundering and receiving proceeds of crime.
HB 6258: Passed 12/5/2018; effective as of 12/5/2018.
Key Impact: Amends the Michigan Penal Code by defining “cryptocurrency” and “distributed ledger technology” and adding their use to the definition of “financial transaction device” for crimes involving credit cards.
HB 5034: Effective as of 6/27/2015.
Key Impact: Regulates fiduciary management of digital assets, including digital currency.
 None.  Silent.
Minnesota  None.  HF 1372: Effective as of 8/1/2016.
Key Impact: Regulates fiduciary management of digital assets, including digital currency.
 SF 3760: Not passed, session adjourned 5/17/2020
Key Impact: Would have prohibited an individual, political committee, political fund, principal campaign committee, or party from soliciting or accepting from any source a contribution or donation of any digital unit of exchange, including but not limited to bitcoin, that is not backed by a government-issued legal tender.
HF 2884: Not passed, session adjourned 5/17/2020
Key Impact: Would have prohibited the solicitation or acceptance of a digital unit of exchange for political campaign purposes and provide for civil and criminal penalties.
HF 2538, SF 2611& HF 2208: Passed as HF 2 on 5/24/2019 after Revised Uniform Unclaimed Property Act language removed
Key Impact: Would have established a Revised Uniform Unclaimed Property Act, which would include virtual currencies under its definition of “property.”
 Silent.
Mississippi  None.  HB 849: Effective as of 7/1/2017.
Key Impact: Regulates fiduciary management of digital property, including digital currency.
 None.  Silent.
Missouri  None  None.  HB 479,HB 1207, HB 908, HB 548 & HB 593
Key Impact: Would have added to the state sales and use tax laws a definition of “marketplace facilitator” and a provision that it includes a person providing virtual currency that purchasers are allowed or required to use to purchase products from a marketplace seller.
HB 1247
Key Impact: Would have defined “virtual currency” as digital moneys in an unregulated environment, issued and controlled by its developers, and used as a payment method among members of a specific virtual community. Would have also required that the state accept virtual currency as legal tender.
HB 379*: Not passed during the 2017 session.
Key Impact: Would ha e regulated fiduciary management of digital property, including digital currency.
*Note: The Senate version of the bill, SB 129, was also not passed during the 2017 session.
SB 872 & HB 2172: Not passed, session adjourned 5/15/2020
Key Impact: Would have added to the state sales and use tax laws a definition of “marketplace facilitator” and a provision that it includes a person providing virtual currency that purchasers are allowed or required to use to purchase products from a marketplace seller.
SB 46 & 50: Not passed, session adjourned 5/30/2019
Key Impact: Would have added to the state sales and use tax laws a definition of “marketplace facilitator” and a provision that it includes a person providing virtual currency that purchasers are allowed or required to use to purchase products from a marketplace seller.
 Silent.
Montana  None.  HB 584: Signed by Governor on 5/8/2019; effective as of 7/1/2019.
Key Impact: exempts utility tokens from the Securities Act of Montana.
SB 118: Effective as of 10/1/2017.
Key Impact: Regulates fiduciary management of digital property, including digital currency.
 HB 630: Died in Standing Committee on 4/25/2019.
Key Impact: would have exempted digital currency from property taxation.
 No license required. Montana does not have a money transmitter licensing regime in place.
Nebraska  None.  LB 284: Signed by Governor on 3/21/2019; effective as of 3/21/2019.
Key Impact: Adds to the state sales and use tax laws a definition of “marketplace facilitator”and a provision that it includes a person providing virtual currency that purchasers are allowed or required to use to purchase products from a marketplace seller.
LB 829: Effective as of 1/1/2017.
Key Impact: Regulates fiduciary management of digital assets, including digital currency.
 LB 987: Not passed; session adjourned on 4/18/2018.
Key Impact: Would have adopted the Uniform Regulation of Virtual Currency Businesses Act.
LB 691: Not passed; session adjourned on 4/18/2018.
Key Impact: Would have adopted the Nebraska Virtual Currency Money Laundering Act and amended the Nebraska Money Transmitters Act by defining “monetary value”as “a medium of exchange, regardless of whether redeemable in money, and includes media that are in electronic of digital format, including distributed ledger technology.”
 Silent.
Nevada No data  SB 164: Approved by Governor on 6/7/2019; effective as of 7/1/2019.
Key Impact: Defines “virtual currency” as a digital representation of value that is created, issued and maintained on a public blockchain, is not attached to any tangible asset or fiat currency, is accepted as a means of payment, and may only be transferred, stored or traded electronically.
SB 44: Approved by Governor on 6/7/2019; effective as of 7/1/2019.
Key Impact: Would revise Nevada’s Uniform Unclaimed Property Act to reflect changes adopted by the Uniform Law Commission in the 2016 Revised Uniform Unclaimed Property Act and include virtual currency under its definition of property.
AB 15: Approved by Governor on 6/3/2019; effective as of 7/1/2019.
Key Impact: Revises the Nevada Revised Statutes definition of “money instrument”to include “virtual currency.”
AB 445: Approved by Governor on 6/12/2019; effective (in part)as of 7/1/2019.
Key Impact: Adds to the state sales and use tax laws a definition of “marketplace facilitator”and a provision that it includes a person providing virtual currency that purchasers are allowed or required to use to purchase products from a marketplace seller.
AB 239: Effective as of 10/1/2017.
Key Impact: Regulates fiduciary management of digital property, including digital currency.
 SB 195: Not passed; session adjourned 6/4/2019.
Key Impact: Would have established a Uniform Regulation of Virtual Currency Businesses Act and the Uniform Supplemental Commercial Law for the Uniform Regulation of Virtual-Currency Businesses Act.
 Silent.
New Hampshire  None.  NH- HB436: Passed on 6/7/2017; effective as of 8/1/2017.
Key Impact: Bill exempts persons selling, issuing or receiving digital currency from money transmitter licensing requirements.
NH – HB 356, codified at N.H. Rev. Stat. § 399-G:25: Effective as of 6/6/2016.
Key Impact: Establishes a commission to study cryptocurrency regulation.
NH –HB666, codified at N.H. Rev. Stat. § 399-G:1 to N.H. Rev. Stat. § 399-G:24.
Key Impact: Defines “convertible virtual currency” and requires a money transmitter license for anyone receiving monetary value, including convertible digital currency, for transmission to another location.
N.H. Rev. Stat. § 399-G:1; N.H. Rev. Stat. § 399-G:2
 NH – HB552:Voted Inexpedient to Legislate on 1/27/2016.
Key Impact: Bill required the development of a plan for the state to accept bitcoin as payment for taxes and fees.
SB 93: Died on table on 11/30/2017.
Key Impact: Bill regulated the fiduciary management of digital property, including digital currency.
 A money transmitter license is not required for “[p]ersons 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 transmission to another location.” However, if a transaction includes sovereign currency, a money transmitter license may be required.
N.H. Rev. Stat. § 399-G:3(VI-a); N.H. Rev. Stat. § 399-G:1; N.H. Rev. Stat. § 399-G:2
For money transmitter licensing requirements, see the New Hampshire Money Transmitter Licensing Chart
New Jersey  A 320
Key Impact: Would require state to review and approve blockchain-based, digital payment platform to provide services to state businesses without access to traditional financial services.
A 1392
Key Impact: Would require state to review and approve blockchain-based, digital payment platform to provide services to state businesses without access to traditional financial services.
A 2155
Key Impact: Would create the “Digital Currency Jobs Creation Act,” which would establish a regulatory framework for digital currency businesses to operate in New Jersey and create incentives for digital currency businesses to locate in state.
 AB 4496: codified at N.J. Rev. Stat. § 54:32B-3.5; effective as of 11/1/2018.
Key Impact: Added providers of virtual currencies to the definition of “marketplace facilitator” for the purposes of the sales and use tax.
AB 3433: Approved on 9/13/2017; effective as of 12/12/2017.
Key Impact: Regulates fiduciary management of digital assets, including digital currency.
 NJ A4478: Introduced and referred to Assembly Financial Institutions and Insurance Committee on 6/1/2015.
Key Impact: A registration would have been required for a person engaged in any digital currency custodial activity for more than 30 days.
S 4208, A 5240: Not passed, session adjourned 1/14/2020
Key Impact: Would have required the State of New Jersey to review and approve a blockchain-based digital payment platform to provide a safe payment system for businesses that do not have access to traditional financial services, and are forced to operate in cash-only or cash-heavy environments.
A 1906: Not passed, session adjourned 1/14/2020
Key Impact: Would have enacted the Digital Currency Jobs Creation Act, the purpose of which “is to promote innovation in the burgeoning digital currency industry, to protect consumers of digital currency services, and to create jobs in the State of New Jersey.”
A 3817: Not passed, session adjourned 1/14/2020
Key Impact: Would have required persons engaged in “digital currency business activity”to complete a registration with the state. This would have included those engaged in “receiving digital currency for transmission or transmitting digital currency, except where the transaction is undertaken for non-financial purposes and does not involve the transfer of more than a nominal amount of digital currency,” among other activities. Qualified trust companies and payment processors would not have been required to register.
 Silent.
New Mexico  None.  HB 250: Effective 1/1/2017.
Key Impact: Money transmitter license is required for the transmission of digital currency. “Money transmission”includes receiving money or monetary value for transmission. “Monetary value” is defined as “a medium of exchange, whether or not redeemable in money.” The New Mexico Regulation and Licensing Department’s Financial Institutions Division has informed Bloomberg BNA that HB 250 imposes licensing requirements for the transmission of digital currency.
SB 60: Effective as of 1/1/2018.
Key Impact: Regulates fiduciary management of digital property, including digital currency.
 HB 649
Key Impact: Would have established an Internet Business Development and Innovations Act, which would establish a licensing requirement for “cryptovalue creators and distributors,” and restrict licensee activities.
 Money transmitter license is required for the transmission of digital currency.* “Money transmission” includes receiving money or monetary value for transmission. “Monetary value” is defined as “a medium of exchange, whether or not redeemable in money.”
N.M. Stat. § 58-32-201
For money transmitter licensing requirements, see the New Mexico Money Transmitter Licensing Chart.
*Note: The New Mexico Regulation and Licensing Department’s Financial Institutions Division has informed Bloomberg BNA that these provisions impose licensing requirements for the transmission of digital currency.
New York  None  A9508: Signed by governor 4/3/2020
Key Impact: Delaying the report of the Digital Currency Task Force for one year.
S 1194 & A 1914: Signed by governor 8/29/2019
Key Impact: Amends the task force established by A 8783 to increase its number from 9 to 13 members, and increase the number of members appointed by the governor from 3 to 7.
S 1194:Passed on 8/29/2019; effective immediately.
Key Impact: Amends task force established by A 8783 to increase its number from 9 to 13 members, and increase the number of members appointed by the governor from 3 to 7.
A 8783:Effective as of 12/21/2018.
Key Impact: Establishes a digital currency task force to provide the governor and legislature with information on the effects of the widespread use of digital currencies in the state.
23 NYCRR 200.1 to 23 NYCRR 200.22: Effective as of 6/24/2015.
Key Impact: Defines “virtual currency” and creates a new license for virtual currency businesses. A license is required to engage in “Virtual Currency Business Activity,” which is defined in 23 NYCRR 200.2(q). See Application Forms For License to Engage in Virtual Currency Business Activity.
23 NYCRR 200.3; 23 NYCRR 200.2(q)
AB 9910: Effective as of 9/29/2016.
Key Impact: Regulates fiduciary management of digital assets, including digital currency.
 A 8314: Not passed, session adjourned 6/10/2020
Key Impact: Would amend New York’s unclaimed property law to include “unclaimed virtual currency” within the definition of unclaimed property.
A 2213: Not passed, session adjourned 6/10/2020
Key Impact: Would create a regulatory sandbox program for new financial technology, including cryptocurrency business activities, and would prohibit licensing fees for such products and services.
A 1500:Not passed, session adjourned 6/10/2020
Key Impact: Would all New York state agencies to accept cryptocurrencies as a form of payment.
A 9899:Not passed, session adjourned 6/19/2019
Key Impact: Would require an audit by a third party depository service for those conducting a “cryptocurrency business activity,” and would prohibit a licensing fee for conducting such activity.
A 1502:Not passed, session adjourned 6/19/2019
Key Impact: Would establish a task force to study the potential designation of economic empowerment zones for the mining of cryptocurrencies in the state of New York.
A 9685, S 4593, S 4562, & S 7725
Key Impact: Would have required an audit by a third party depository service for those conducting a “cryptocurrency business activity,” and would prohibit a licensing fee for conducting such activity.
S 7724:Not passed, session adjourned 6/10/2020
Key Impact: Would establish a digital currency task force to provide the governor and the legislature with information on the potential effects of the widespread implementation of digital currencies on financial markets in the state.
A 9782: Not passed, session adjourned 6/19/2019
Key Impact: Would establish that state agencies are allowed to accept cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin, ethereum, litecoin and bitcoin cash as payment.
 If a digital currency transmitter engages in the business of selling or issuing checks, receiving money for transmission or transmitting money, a money transmitter license is required.*
N.Y. Banking Law § 641; 3 NYCRR 406.1
For money transmitter licensing requirements, see the New York Money Transmitter Licensing Chart.
*Note: A License to Engage in Virtual Currency Business Activity is required when transmitting digital currency. Certain digital currency transmitters may need both a money transmitter license and a License to Engage in Virtual Currency Business Activity. N.Y. Banking Law § 641; 3 NYCRR 406.1; 23 NYCRR 200.3; 23 NYCRR 200.2(q); see also BitLicense Frequently Asked Questions; Application Forms For License to Engage in Virtual Currency Business ActivityNYDFS Guidance on Prevention of Market Manipulation and Other Wrongful Activity.
Beginning 10/1/2018, a Virtual Currency License can be obtained or maintained through NMLS. See NMLS NY Virtual Currency Business Activity License Transition Checklist and NY Virtual Currency Business Activity License New Application Checklist.
For additional guidance discussing digital currency and money transmission licensing, see New York Money Transmission Licensing Guidance.
North Carolina  None.  Consumer Alert: Virtual Currencies
NC Money Transmitters Act (House Bill 289): Codified at N.C. Gen. Stat. § 53-208.41 to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 53-208.64, effective as of 10/1/2016.
Key Impact: Defines “virtual currency” and requires a money transmitter license for anyone engaged in the business of money transmission, which includes maintaining control of virtual currency on behalf of others.
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 53-208.42(12), (20); N.C. Gen. Stat. § 53-208.43; see also N.C. Gen. Stat. § 53-208.44(8) (noting an exemption for certain virtual currency transactions)
SB 805: Codified at N.C. Gen. Stat. § 36F-1 to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 36F-18, effective as of 6/30/2016.
Key Impact: Regulates fiduciary management of digital assets, including digital currency.
 None.  A money transmitter license is required for those maintaining control of virtual currency on behalf of others.
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 53-208.42(12); Money Transmitter Frequently Asked Questions
“Virtual Currency”means a digital representation of value that can be digitally traded and functions as a medium of exchange, a unit of account, or a store of value but only to the extent defined as stored value under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 53-208.42(19), but does not have legal tender status as recognized by the United States Government.
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 53-208.42(20)
For money transmitter licensing requirements, see the North Carolina Money Transmitter Licensing Chart.
For additional guidance on virtual currency and licensing requirements, see Money Transmitter Frequently Asked Questions.
North Dakota  None.  HR 3004: Filed with Secretary of State on 4/3/2019; effective as of 8/1/2019.
Key Impact: Calls for a study of the potential benefits for distributed ledger technology and blockchain for state government.
SB 2338:Signed by Governor on 3/26/2019; effective as of 7/1/2019.
Key Impact: Adds to the state sales and use tax laws a definition of “marketplace facilitator”and a provision that it includes a person providing virtual currency that purchasers are allowed or required to use to purchase products from a marketplace seller.
HB 1214: Effective as of 8/1/2017.
Key Impact: Regulates fiduciary management of digital property, including digital currency.
 HR 3002:
Key Impact: Would have called for a study of the potential benefits for distributed ledger technology and blockchain for state government.
HB 1043:
Key Impact: Would have exempted an “open blockchain token” from regulation as a security.
SB 2100: Not passed; session adjourned 4/27/2017.
Key Impact: As introduced, a money transmitter license would have been required for those maintaining control of digital currency on behalf of others. However, the engrossed version of the bill stated that during the 2017-18 interim, the legislative management would consider studying the feasibility and desirability of regulating digital currency.
 Silent.
Ohio  None.  HB 166: Passed on 7/18/2019; effective as of 7/18/2019.
Key Impact: Adds to the state sales and use tax laws a definition of “marketplace facilitator”and a provision that it includes a person providing virtual currency that purchasers are allowed or required to use to purchase products from a marketplace seller.
As of 11/26/2018, the Ohio Treasurer launched OhioCrypto.com, which allows businesses to pay taxes with cryptocurrency.
HB 432: Effective as of 4/6/2017.
Key Impact: Regulates fiduciary management of digital assets, including digital currency.
 None.  A money transmitter license is required for the transmission of digital currency, which is considered to be “money or its equivalent” within the definition of “transmit money” under Ohio Rev. Code § 1315.01.*
For money transmitter licensing requirements, see the Ohio Money Transmitter Licensing Chart
*Note: Bloomberg BNA has confirmed this information with the Ohio Department of Commerce’s Division of Financial Institutions.
Oklahoma  None  None.  SB 809
Key Impact: Would have mandated that the state’s Ethics Commission promulgate rules requiring that campaign contributions in virtual currency be converted to US dollars within 72 hours.
SB 911
Key Impact: Would have authorized the Okahoma Tax Commission to make recommendations to the Governor, Senate, and House of Representatives on whether the excise tax on the sale of marijuana may be remitted electronically in the form of digital currency.
HB 1954
Key Impact: Would have established the Uniform Regulation of Virtual Currency Businesses Act, which would include a licensing requirement.
SB 822:Not passed; session adjourned 5/23/2019.
Key Impact: Would have provided a definition of “virtual currency” that would not apply to various financial institutions, electronic transfers of government benefits, or transactions involving payment instruments or stored value in the form of virtual currency.
SB 1430: Not passed, session adjourned 5/29/2019
Key Impact: Would have authorized the State Banking Department and the Oklahoma Department of Commerce to coordinate and develop plans, make recommendations to the the legislature and establish requirements and a strategy to implement a new type of financial institution to be a state-chartered financial institution and the central depository for virtual currency used by governmental agencies in Oklahoma.
SB 1666: Not passed, session adjourned 5/29/2019
Key Impact: Would have exempted digital currency from state security laws and authorize state agencies to accept digital currency as payment.
SB 1667: Not passed, session adjourned 5/29/2019
Key Impact: Would have authorized cryptocurrency to be used for certain purchases and payments.
 Silent.
Oregon  None.  HB 2488: Signed by Governor on 5/3/2013; effective as of 1/1/20.
Key Impact: Prohibits the state government from accepting payments using cryptocurrency, and prohibits candidates for public office from accepting campaign contributions using cryptocurrency.
Senate Bill 277, codified at Or. Rev. Stat. § 717.200 to Or. Rev. Stat. § 717.320, Or. Rev. Stat. § 717.900, and Or. Rev. Stat. § 717.905: Effective as of 5/20/2015.
Key Impact: Defines “money”and requires a money transmitter license when conducting a money transmission business, which includes receiving digital currency for transmission or transmitting digital currency within the United States or to locations abroad by any and all means.
Or. Rev. Stat. § 717.205; Or. Rev. Stat. § 717.200(10), (11).
SB 1554: Effective as of 1/1/2017.
Key Impact: Regulates fiduciary management of digital assets, including digital currency.
 None.  A money transmitter license is required when transmitting digital currency.
Or. Rev. Stat. § 717.205; Or. Rev. Stat. § 717.200(10), (11)
For money transmitter licensing requirements, see the Oregon Money Transmitter Licensing Chart.
Pennsylvania  None.  None.  None.*
*Note: The original version of Money Transmitter Act (House Bill 850) defined money, in part, as digital currency, but that language was removed from the final version of the bill.
 The Pennsylvania Department of Banking and Securities has informed Bloomberg BNA that no license is required.
Money Transmitter Act Guidance for Virtual Currency Businesses, issued in response to inquiries from virtual currency businesses, clarified that virtual currency including Bitcoin is not considered to be “money” under Pennsylvania’s Money Transmitter Act, and that as a result, virtual currency trading platforms and virtual currency kiosks, ATMs, and vending machines will not be considered money transmitters required to be licensed under the Money Transmitter Act.
See also The Quarter, Newsletter of the Pennsylvania Department of Banking and Securities, Bitcoin Update
Rhode Island  None.  S 753:
Key Impact: Includes “maintaining control of virtual currency or transactions in virtual currency on behalf of others” in the definition of “currency transmission”and define “virtual currency.”
H 5847: Signed by Governor on 7/15/2019; effective as of 1/1/2020.
Key Impact: Defines “virtual currency” and requires a money transmitter license for anyone engaged in the business of money transmission, which includes maintaining control of virtual currency on behalf of others.
H 5443: Signed by Governor on 6/21/2019; effective as of 6/21/2019.
Key Impact: Regulates fiduciary management of digital property, including digital currency.
H 5151:Signed by Governor on 7/5/2019; effective as of 7/1/2019.
Key Impact: Adds to the state sales and use tax laws a definition of “marketplace facilitator”and a provision that it includes a person providing virtual currency that purchasers are allowed or required to use to purchase products from a marketplace seller.
S 251 & H 5278: Signed by Governor on 3/29/2019; effective as of 3/29/2019.
Key Impact: Add to the state sales and use tax laws a definition of “marketplace facilitator”and a provision that it includes a person providing virtual currency that purchasers are allowed or required to use to purchase products from a marketplace seller.
 HB 5598:
Key Impact: This bill would have exempted transactions involving digital currency from the Rhode Island Uniform Securities Act.
H 5776:
Key Impact: This bill would have established the “Digital Asset Business Act,”provide that the Department of Business Regulation license digital-currency business activity, and exempted digital currency from compliance with securities requirements and from taxation.
H 5595:
Key Impact: This bill would have exempted a developer or seller of an open blockchain token from the provisions of the Rhode Island Uniform Securities Act.
H 5596:
Key Impact: This bill would have exempted digital currency from taxation.
 Silent.
South Carolina  None  SB 908: Codified at S.C. Code § 62-2-1010 to S.C. Code § 62-2-1090, effective as of 6/3/2016.
Key Impact: Regulates fiduciary management of digital assets, including digital currency.
 HB 4351: Not passed, session adjourned 5/14/2019
Key Impact: Would have enacted the “South Carolina Blockchain Industry Empowerment Act of 2019” to establish the state as an incubator for tech industries seeking to develop innovation by using blockchain technology and to authorize corporations to issue certificate tokens in lieu of stock certificates.
SB 524: Not passed, session adjourned 5/14/2019
Key Impact: Would have established a Revised Uniform Unclaimed Property Act, which would include virtual currencies under its definition of “property.”
HB 4200: Not passed, session adjourned 5/14/2019
Key Impact: Would have amended the unclaimed property provisions of the Uniform Unclaimed Property Act to consider virtual currency to be property.
HB 3723: Not passed, session adjourned 5/14/2019
Key Impact: Would have allowed political candidates and committees to accept digital currencies as contributions, and would require that increases in the value of such digital currencies be reported as interest.
 Silent. The South Carolina Attorney General has stated that “further guidance will be provided in the near future.” See Money Services Frequently Asked Questions.
South Dakota  None.  HB 1080: Effective as of 7/1/2017.
Key Impact: Regulates fiduciary management of digital property, including digital currency.
 Unless exempt under § 51A-17-3, no person may engage in the business of money transmission in South Dakota without obtaining a license and undergoing a criminal background investigation.
S.D. Codified Laws § 51A-17-4
 Silent.
Tennessee  SB 2840
Key Impact: Would establish the legal nature of digital assets within existing law, including the Uniform Commercial Code, and classify such assets into categories of intangible personal property.
 Senate Bill 674, codified at Tenn. Code § 2-10-113 and Tenn. Code § 2-10-102(4):Effective as of 4/30/2015.
Key Impact: A candidate or political campaign committee is allowed to accept digital currency as a contribution. Digital currency shall be considered a monetary contribution with the value of the digital currency being the market value of the digital currency at the time the contribution is received.
Tenn. Code § 2-10-113; Tenn. Code § 2-10-102(4)
SB 326: Effective as of 7/1/2016.
Key Impact: Regulates fiduciary management of digital assets, including digital currency.
 None.*
*Note: As introduced, HB 2093 & SB 2508 would have prohibited the 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. That language was removed from the final bill.
 A money transmitter license is not required when transmitting digital currency. However, if a transaction includes sovereign currency, a money transmitter license may be required.
Memorandum re Regulatory Treatment of Virtual Currencies under the Tennessee Money Transmitter Act; see also Virtual Currency Statement of Policy
For money transmitter licensing requirements, see the Tennessee Money Transmitter Licensing Chart.
For additional guidance discussing digital currency and money transmission licensing, see Tennessee Money Transmission Licensing Guidance.
Texas  None.  SB 207: Signed by Governor on 6/14/2019; effective as of 9/1/2019.
Key Impact: Amends the Texas Penal Code by adding “digital currency” to the definition of funds in the chapter defining the crime of money laundering.
SB 64: Passed on 6/7/2019; effective as of 9/1/2019.
Key Impact: Each state agency and local government shall, in the administration of the agency or local government, consider using next generation technologies, including cryptocurrency, blockchain technology, and artificial intelligence.
SB 1193: Effective as of 9/1/2017.
Key Impact: Regulates fiduciary management of digital property, including digital currency.
 HB 4371
Key Impact: Would have required verification of the identity of a person sending a payment before accepting payment by a digital currency. Identity verification would not be required if payment is sent by a “verified identity digital currency,” a digital currency that allows the true identities of the sender and receiver to be known before a person has access to another person’s digital wallet. The state of Texas would be allowed to use only a digital currency that is a verified identity digital currency.
HB 4517
Key Impact: Would have established a working group to develop a master plan to foster the expansion of blockchain industry in the state of Texas.
HB 981
Key Impact: Would have included digital currencies in the definition of “funds” for money laundering offenses.
HJR 89: Not passed; session adjourned 5/29/2017.
Key Impact: Would have amended the Texas Constitution to allow people to own, hold, and use an agreed upon exchange, including digital currency, when trading and contracting for goods and services.
 Supervisory Memorandum —1037 issued in April 2014 established that a money transmitter license is not required when transmitting digital currency, but if a transaction includes sovereign currency, a money transmitter license may be required.
A January 2019 revision (a) divides virtual currency into centralized virtual currencies created an issued by a specified source that rely on an entity with some form of authority or control over the currency, (b) states that exchanging virtual currency for sovereign currency is not currency exchange under the Texas Financial Code because virtual currencies are not considered currency, and (c)establishes that stablecoins pegged to sovereign currency may be considered a claim that can be converted into currency and thus fall within the definition of money or monetary value under the Financial Code.
Supervisory Memorandum – 1037 re Regulatory Treatment of Virtual Currencies Under the Texas Money Services Act
For money transmitter licensing requirements, see the Texas Money Transmitter Licensing Chart.
For additional guidance discussing digital currency and money transmission licensing, see Texas Money Transmission Licensing Guidance.
Utah  None  SB 2001: Signed by Governor on 12/18/2019; effective as of 4/1/2020.
Adds to the state sales and use tax laws a definition of “marketplace facilitator”and a provision that it includes a person providing virtual currency that purchasers are allowed or required to use to purchase products from a marketplace seller.
SB 168: Signed by Governor on 4/1/2019; effective as of 10/1/2019.
Key Impact: Adds to the state sales and use tax laws a definition of “marketplace facilitator”and a provision that it includes a person providing virtual currency that purchasers are allowed or required to use to purchase products from a marketplace seller.
SB 70: Signed by Governor on 3/21/2019; effective as of 5/20/2019.
Key Impact: Amends the unclaimed property provisions of the Uniform Unclaimed Property Act to consider virtual currency to be property.
SB 213: Effective as of 5/13/2019.
Key Impact: defines “blockchain”or “blockchain technology” as an electronic method of storing data that is maintained by consensus of multiple unaffiliated parties, distributed across multiple locations, and mathematically verified. Also specifies that “money transmission” does not include a blockchain token.
HB 13: Effective as of 5/9/2017.
Key Impact: Regulates fiduciary management of digital property, including digital currency.
SB 111: Signed by governor 3/30/2020 & SB 114: Signed by governor 3/31/2020
Key Impact: Adds “marketplace facilitator” and “virtual currency” language to list of definitions in sales tax act.
 H.C.R. 6 Concurrent Resolution on Payment Options for State Services: Filed in the House for bills not passed on 3/12/2015.
Key Impact: This resolution proposed the creation of a counsel to study whether and how the state of Utah could accept bitcoin as a valid form of payment.
HB 356: Vetoed by governor 4/1/2020
Key Impact: Would have provided a virtual currency for a purchaser to use to purchase tangible personal property, a product transferred electronically, or service offered for sale
 Silent.
Vermont  None  H. 536: Signed by Governor on 6/4/2019; effective as of 6/4/2019.
Key Impact: Adds to the state sales and use tax laws a definition of “marketplace facilitator”and a provision that it includes a person providing virtual currency that purchasers are allowed or required to use to purchase products from a marketplace seller.
S. 154: Signed by Governor on 5/13/2019; effective as of 7/1/2019.
Key impact: Defines “Virtual Currency” as prepaid access that (a) can be a medium of exchange, a unit of account, or a store of value, (b) has an equivalent value in money or acts as a substitute for money, (c) may be centralized or decentralized, and (d) can be exchanged for money or other convertible virtual currency.
S 269, Act 205: Signed by Governor on 5/30/2018; effective as of 7/1/2018.
Key Impact: Creates the Blockchain-Based Limited Liability Company and the Personal Information Protection Company as new types of entities under Vermont Law. For additional analysis of the law, see the Blockchain State Corporation and Contract Law Tracker.
H 182: Signed by Governor on 5/4/2017; most sections effective as of 5/4/2017 (secs. 13, 24 and 25 effective as of 7/1/2017).
Key Impact: Defines “virtual currency”in state money transmitter law as “stored value that (A) can be a medium of exchange, a unit of account, or a store of value; (B)has an equivalent value in money or acts as a substitute for money;(C) may be centralized or decentralized; and (D) can be exchanged for money or other convertible virtual currency.” Vermont has already indicated that it regulates the transmission of digital currency through its money transmitter laws. The law also allows money transmitters to use “virtual currency owned by the licensee” as a “permissible investment,” “but only to the extent of outstanding transmission obligations received by the licensee in identical denomination of virtual currency.”
HB 152: Effective as of 7/1/2017.
Key Impact: Regulates fiduciary management of digital property, including digital currency.
H. 550: signed by governor 4/29/20; takes effect 1/1/2021
Key impact: Updates Vermont law pertaining to unclaimed property and include virtual currency under its definition of property.
 H. 117 & H. 349: Not passed; session adjourned 5/29/2019.
Key Impact: Would have added to the state sales and use tax laws a definition of “marketplace facilitator” and a provision that it includes a person providing virtual currency that purchasers are allowed or required to use to purchase products from a marketplace seller.
H. 765: Not passed; session adjourned 6/29/2018.
Key Impact: Intended to implement strategies relating to blockchain, cryptocurrency, and financial technology in order to: promote regulatory efficiency; enable business organizational and governance structures that may expand opportunities in financial technology; and promote education and adoption of financial technology in the public and private sectors.
 A money transmitter license is required to transmit digital currency. See H 182, effective as of 5/4/2017.
According to a settlement agreement issued by the Vermont Department of Financial Regulation, “[t]he business of ‘money transmission’ includes selling stored value, which includes selling bitcoin or other virtual currencies. 8 VSA § 2500 (11), see also 8 VSA § 2500 (8), (20).”
Settlement Agreement, In Re: PYC, Inc.; BLU-BIN, Inc.
Virginia  None.  HB 1700: Approved by Governor on 5/2/2019; effective as of 5/2/2019.
Key Impact: Adds to the state sales and use tax laws a definition of “marketplace facilitator”and a provision that it includes a person providing virtual currency that purchasers are allowed or required to use to purchase products from a marketplace seller.
HB 1722: Signed by Governor on 3/26/2019; effective as of 7/1/2019.
SB 1083: Signed by Governor on 3/26/2019; effective as of 7/1/2019.
HB 1608: Signed by Governor on 2/17/2017; effective as of July 1, 2017. This bill is identical to SB 903.
Key Impact: Regulates fiduciary management of digital property, including digital currency.
 SB 864
Key Impact: Would have directed the State Corporation Commission to conduct a study of the effects of the growth of cryptocurrencies.
SB 1767, HB 2801, HB 2090, SB 1100, SB 1267, SB 1500, SB 1601
Key Impact: Would have amended provisions relating to remote sales and use tax collection of the Tax Code of Virginia.
 Money transmission license required if fiat currency is involved. Transactions that only involve digital currency do not require a money transmitter license. Notice to Virginia Residents Regarding Virtual Currency
Washington  None  SB 5031 : Signed by the Governor on 4/13/2017; Effective 7/23/2017.
Key Impact: Digital currency transmission is included in the definition of money transmission, but the bill exempts uses of blockchain when the digital currency at issue is not used as a medium of exchange.
SB 5029: Codified at Wash. Rev. Code § 11.120.010 to Wash. Rev. Code § 11.120.901, effective as of 6/9/2016.
Key Impact: Regulates fiduciary management of digital assets, including digital currency.
 SB 5264: Not passed;session adjourned on 3/8/2018.
Key Impact: Digital currency would have no longer been an acceptable form of payment within the marijuana industry.
HB 2234, HB 1179: Not passed, legislature adjourned 3/12/2020
Key Impact: Would have created a revised uniform unclaimed property act, which would include virtual currencies under its definition of property.
 A money transmitter license is required when transmitting “virtual currency.” However, a license is not required for uses of blockchain when the virtual currency at issue is not used as a medium of exchange. The definition of “virtual currency” does not include “ the software or protocols governing the transfer of the digital representation of value or other uses of virtual distributed ledger systems to verify ownership or authenticity in a digital capacity when the virtual currency is not used as a medium of exchange.”
Wash. Rev. Code § 19.230.030; Wash. Rev. Code § 19.230.010(18), (30)
For money transmitter licensing requirements, see the Washington Money Transmitter Licensing Chart.
West Virginia  None  HB 2813: Approved by Governor on 3/27/2019; Effective as of June 6, 2019.
Key Impact: Adds to the state sales and use tax laws a definition of “marketplace facilitator”and a provision that it includes a person providing virtual currency that purchasers are allowed or required to use to purchase products from a marketplace seller.
HB 2585: Approved by Governor on 4/26/2017; Effective as of July 7, 2017.
Key Impact: Includes digital currency within the definition of “monetary instrument”for the purposes of the state’s criminal money laundering statutes.
 SB 477: Not passed, legislature adjourned 3/9/2019
Key Impact: Would have added to the state sales and use tax laws a definition of “marketplace facilitator”and a provision that it includes a person providing virtual currency that purchasers are allowed or required to use to purchase products from a marketplace seller.
SB 693: Not passed, legislature adjourned 4/9/2017
Key Impact: This bill would have regulated fiduciary management of digital property, including digital currency.
HCR 29: Not passed, legislature adjourned 3/10/2018
Key Impact: Requesting the Joint Committee on Government and Finance to study Bitcoin, its future and potential impact on the state, it’s citizens, and businesses.
 Silent.
Wisconsin  None  AB 695: Approved by Governor on 3/31/2016; effective as of 4/1/2016.
Key Impact: Adds to the state sales and use tax laws a definition of “marketplace provider”and a provision that it includes a person providing virtual currency that purchasers are allowed or required to use to purchase products from a marketplace seller.
AB 695: Codified at Wis. Stat. § 711.01 to Wis. Stat. § 711.16, effective as of 4/1/2016.
Key Impact: Regulates fiduciary management of digital assets, including digital currency.
 SB 756: Failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1, 4/1/20
Key Impact: Would have required that virtual currency presumed abandoned is subject to reporting and custody of the state if the holder is able to convert virtual currency to U.S. currency by sale, exchange, or any other disposition, and that the holder shall convert the virtual currency to U.S. currency for delivery to the administrator.
SB 59: Failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1, 4/1/20
Key Impact: Would have added to the state sales and use tax laws a definition of “marketplace provider” and a provision that it includes a person providing virtual currency that purchasers are allowed or required to use to purchase products from a marketplace seller.
AB 752: Failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1, 4/1/20
Key Impact: Would have amended Wisconsin’s unclaimed property law to include “unclaimed virtual currency” within the definition of unclaimed property.
 The Department of Financial Institutions does not issue licenses under Wisconsin’s Seller of Checks Law to digital currency transmitters, but asks such entities to enter into an agreement with the Division of Banking.
Department of Financial Institutions – Seller of Checks
Additionally, the license application for money transmitters asks about virtual currency, and applicants must state in their business plan if their activities include transmitting non-fiat currency.
Seller of Checks License Instructions & Application
Wyoming  None  Department of Audit, Banking Division, Chapter 19: Enhanced Digital Custody Opt-in Regime. Effective as of 11/8/2019
HB 74:Signed by Governor on 2/26/2019; effective as of 10/1/2019.
Key Impact: Authorizes chartering of special purpose depository banks for blockchain companies.
SF 125:
Key Impact: Authorizes security interests in digital assets, and establishes an opt-in framework for banks to provide custodial services for digital asset property as directed custodians. Also provides the courts of Wyoming with jurisdiction to hear claims relating to digital assets.
HB 62:
Key Impact: Establishes that open blockchain tokens with specified characteristics are intangible personal property and not subject to a securities exemption. Also requires developers and sellers of open blockchain tokens to file notices of intent and fees with the secretary of state.
HB 19: Amends Wyo. Stat. § 40-22-102 and Wyo. Stat. § 40-22-104; signed by Governor on 3/7/2018.
Key Impact: Amends the Wyoming Money Transmitter Act to provide an exemption for digital currency transmission.
SB 111: Signed by Governor on 3/12/2018.
Key Impact: Exempts digital currencies from property taxation.
HB 70: Amends Wyo. Stat. § 17-4-206, Wyo. Stat. § 17-4-102, Wyo. Stat. § 40-22-104 and Wyo. Stat. § 40-22-126;signed by Governor on 3/12/2018.
Key Impact: Amends the Wyoming Money Transmitter Act to provide an exemption for a person who develops, sells or facilitates the exchange of an open blockchain token; also amends the Wyoming Uniform Securities Act re same.
SF 34: Codified at Wyo. Stat. § 2-3-1001 to Wyo. Stat. § 2-3-1017, effective as of 7/1/2016.
Key Impact: Regulates fiduciary management of digital assets, including digital currency.
 Wyoming Money Transmitter Act-investments (House Bill 26): Failed house standing committee vote on 2/29/2016.
Key Impact: This bill included digital currency as a permissible investment for money transmitter licensees.
HB 41: Failed introduction 2/10/2020
Key Impact: Would have added a provision that no person shall be compelled to produce a private key or make a private key known to any other person in any civil, administrative, legislative, or other proceeding, in Wyoming, that only relates to a digital security to which the private key provides access.
 The Wyoming Money Transmitter Act does no apply to “buying, selling, issuing, or taking custody of payment instruments or stored value in the form of virtual currency or receiving virtual currency for transmission to a location within or outside the United States by any means.” Wyo. Stat. § 40-22-104.
“‘Virtual currency’” means any type of digital representation of value that: (A) Is used as a medium of exchange, unit of account or store of value; and (B) Is not recognized as legal tender by the United States government.”Wyo. Stat. § 40-22-102.
Wyo. Stat. § 40-22-104 also exempts “a person who develops, sells or facilitates the exchange of an open blockchain token, as defined in Wyo. Stat. § 17-4-206(e).”