[Aethercollector]

Ben Lawsky twitter - https://twitter.com/BenLawsky/status/563060755088834560
New version: http://www.dfs.ny.gov/legal/regulations/revised_vc_regulation.pdf
Old version: http://www.dfs.ny.gov/about/press2014/pr1407171-vc.pdf

TLDR
-Costs $5,000 to apply
-Capital requirements (for USD$) by licensee to be based on relative business size (Ongoing TBD)
-Business must notify Lawsky/state if you're going to change a product or service, or offer new ones

"Each Licensee must obtain the superintendent’s prior written approval for any plan or proposal to introduce or offer a new product, service, or activity, or to make a material change to an existing product, service, or activity, involving New York or New York Residents."

(Looks like he wants to be the czar of crypto for NY)

-Keep records for 7 years, includes name, addresses, dates, amounts, etc.
-Audits by Lawsky/state every 2 years!
-Licensee must conduct its own internal AML program (interesting they left it to the business)
-Must report amounts over $10,000 to Lawsky/state.
-"Enhanced due diligence" by licensee for foreign customers to detect risk, money laundering (this is ambiguous)
-Cyber security program run by licensee to protect electronic systems
-Disaster recovery plan run by licensee to protect funds, backups, etc.

Well now we have seen the newest proposal out in the field.

[quigley]

I don't know much about New York, but is this proposed system meaningfully different from the rules levied on a fiat money lender or a bank? Looking through the text, I don't see a lot of justification for the rage this issue seems to generate.

Is this just standard regulation being applied to crypto-related businesses, or is crypto being discriminated against?

[Aethercollector]

I thought the same initially.
These rules are not the same for banks from what I'm reading.
Also I've never heard a bank needing to get prior permission from the superintendent of the state, before introducing or offering a new product, service, activity, and so on.

[quigley]

That's disappointing. However, it appears to be moving in the right direction. The rule about new products/services seems excessive, as does the transfer of company ownership, but the majority of these rules don't strike me as unreasonable for a company holding customers' money in trust.

[Aethercollector]

I agree, its at least a step in the right direction for businesses to attempt to do business in this sector.
The $5k bar entry and the prior permission for doing anything are the two largest rules in my opinion that need to be edited. They impair business and if not disable to attempt any. It squashes innovation.

[quigley]

Agreed. Hopefully this is not the final version. Another revision might make New York a good place to start a crypto-business.

[Cryptic]

La Times Today: "N.Y. issues charter to bitcoin firm"

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-bitcoin-new-york-20150508-story.html

Good in 50 states, for now.

Great news for Crypto!

[kcal]

It is still ridiculous since it applies to ALL Bitcoin businesses anywhere in the world. The reg as written would apply to virtually every crypto business in the world. Talk about arrogance and stupidity rolled into a single puffed up regulator (who BTW is only doing this for the attention prior to running for higher office).
Good luck auditing the books of a Russian BTC business from NY.

[Cryptic]

Well it's great news for cryptos like AI Coin because it

1. Validates cryptocurrency
2. Reassures investors
3. Simplifies the licensing in the US for now

[Aethercollector]

Did they link the charter somewhere else?
I'm curious what it says.

[kcal]

Reasonable regulation is a great idea, and nescessary for crypto to go mainstream but I think it is something that needs to be done on a national level (and eventually with international agreements) for the regulatory burden on businesses to get down to a reasonable level.

[Cryptic]

Agreed!