Newsom Vetoes 'Premature' Crypto Oversight Bill For California (bloomberg.com) 33
California Governor Gavin Newsom vetoed a bill that would require crypto financial-service businesses to get a special license to operate, calling it premature and costly. Bloomberg reports: Newsom on Friday declined to sign the legislation known as the Digital Financial Assets Law, which was passed by the state assembly and senate last month. While the governor said he shares the bill's intent to protect Californians from financial harm and provide clear rules for the industry, his administration has been conducting research and gathering input on the right approach. The bill would require a loan of "tens of millions of dollars" from the general fund during the first several years, a "significant" commitment that needs to be accounted for in the state's annual budget process, Newsom added.
"It is premature to lock a licensing structure in statute without considering both this work and forthcoming federal actions," Newsom said in a statement. "A more flexible approach is needed to ensure regulatory oversight can keep up with rapidly evolving technology and use cases, and is tailored with the proper tools to address trends and mitigate consumer harm."
"It is premature to lock a licensing structure in statute without considering both this work and forthcoming federal actions," Newsom said in a statement. "A more flexible approach is needed to ensure regulatory oversight can keep up with rapidly evolving technology and use cases, and is tailored with the proper tools to address trends and mitigate consumer harm."
In other news (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do they eat corrupt politicians too?
Re: (Score:2)
No, they shit them.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, so that's where they come from. I always figured they came out of a horse's ass.
Surprised he had the time! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: is there a financial incentive ? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But it certainly couldn't be the case that they did such a good job of designing a government that it hasn't needed many changes. That would just be silly. Just as silly as counting the number of amendments and asking why you don't think any of them count as meaningful.
Re: (Score:2)
Go ahead and elect another president on the second Tuesday of November, as if that makes any sense in the 21st century. Just don't expect to do it directly, because the Electoral College knows better than you who you want in power.
Those are just two examples of how poor your system is. You are also still having debates about
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Why? Newsome won't survive the Dem primaries. He's a protected class in California. No one else outside the state is going to do him any favors. He's never had to fight for anything in his life. He's going to get eaten alive by his own party before he sees a single R.
Re: (Score:1)
Hey bad mod, that's not flame bait. It's truth. I've watched Newsome from his very early days as a nobody in SF working his way up the ladder with all opposition candidates being pushed aside, presumably because he's related to Pelosi and no one wants to piss her off.
Once he leaves her protection in California and has to run a national campaign she won't be able to cover for him any more and she'll either be retired or much politically weaker by 2024 campaign. He will have to do something he's never had
Re: (Score:2)
You are conflating your own biases and opinions with facts. That's OK, it's a fairly common malady here on Slashdot.
Re: (Score:1)
It is a fact he was a nobody who ran for office in SF and went from mayor of broken city he didn't improve in any way to governor of the largest state he didn't improve in any way. I lived in California for 30+ years, most of them in the SF area and directly worked and lived in SF itself for a few years until recently. Did you?
It is a fact he is related to Pelosi. It's biology.
It is a fact he had no real competition in any of his elections.
It is a fact she can't cover for him at national level.
It is a f
Re: (Score:2)
Did you?
Yup. Been in SF since 2003. Just declaring something is fact DOES NOT make it fact. What does "cover for him" even mean? Just say that you hate Newsome and be done with it. Why do you have to waste time trying to justify that hate?
Re: (Score:1)
Ok so you got nothing. You just like Newsome and snarked at someone who has watched his career since he was in diapers.
I already explained twice what cover for him means. No one wants to cross Pelosi so this chucklehead has never had real competition in an election.
Challenge for you: without checking a search engine, name his opponent in any election and for bonus points, how much was the final spread? How much money and support did he get vs. them? Who was the news media supporting?
He's never had to ru
Re: (Score:2)
No one wants to cross Pelosi
Yeah that's not a fact. That's an opinion.
Since I moved a few months ago
Lol!
Did he make SF a better place? How? Be specific.
Not really sure what it was like before he was elected as I moved here when he got elected. But I can tell you that SF was a far better back in 2005 than it is in 2022.
Be specific or go away.
No.
Re: (Score:1)
Who has ever crossed Pelosi? No one. Fact.
Why is it "lol" I moved out of SF a few months ago? It sucks there. Lots of people have moved. You're silly and odd.
SF has been on a downward ward trend since I moved to the Bay Area in 1987. It had a brief up before the dot coms exploded but otherwise the trend is clear. More expensive, more homeless, more crime, fewer services, dirtier streets, generally lower quality of life. Nothing special about him in this case. Every mayor has sucked because that's wh
Re: (Score:2)
Next time you step up, be prepared to have something intelligent to say and back it up
No
Re: (Score:1)
Lmao, that worked out well for you, showing up to snark, ad hominem and karma whore and then getting schooled.
Keep it up!
Have a great weekend. You were amusing while I needed to kill some time but we're now done here.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Newsom is a hypocritical piece of shit all day, and I say this as someone who voted for him in the last fuckery because I found him preferably to Larry Elder. He's just signed legislation that is going to force homeless people into for-profit mental health care. His inflation relief payment is going only to people who paid taxes, and the people who are tax exempt because they make that little money and don't file have no path to receive it.
Newsom is part of the same club of Getty suckers as Pelosi [newsweek.com], Getty wa
Re: (Score:2)
Same vote here, for the same reason.
We used to have state-run hospitals. ACLU sued that force-placing people is wrong, and the state Supreme Court agreed. I don't know if it went to SCOTUS. Reagan shut down state hospitals due to less use.
I'm not sure how this new law will get around any challenges. Is it better or worse to have for-profit or government receptacles within which to force-place people? They both certainly have their failure modes.
Re: (Score:2)
Is it better or worse to have for-profit or government receptacles within which to force-place people? They both certainly have their failure modes.
At this point we shouldn't be forcing anyone into anything, we should be offering help to people who want it. There's enormous numbers of homeless who want help.
The bigger problem is that many of these governments don't actually want to help. They want to spend their money in ways that will make the homeless go away, not in ways that will help them remain in the area. Santa Cruz has been sitting on piles of money for example, and they are about to spend a bunch of it forcing people out of where they are cur
Perfectly Reasonable (Score:1)
They voted on it (Score:2)
Unlike any of his people's decisions. (Score:2)