Eric Adams, New York City’s Mayor, has criticized BitLicensing in his state. He claims that it hinders innovation and economic growth.
Adams said in a closing keynote interview that he spoke at the Crypto and Digital Assets Summit, London on April 27th. He suggested that his Albany state legislator counterparts “listen to those in the industry,” adding:
“It’s not about thinking outside the box. It’s about thinking on this one. We may have to remove the box.”
Adams, a crypto advocate and candidate for mayor in New York City, set out to make the city the “center” of cryptocurrency. He also took his first three paychecks as Bitcoin (BTC) while running. He stated that cryptocurrencies and blockchain technology were the “next chapters” in the future and that the opportunity should not be wasted.
“New York State is not the only state that requires a license for crypto-company owners. This is a prohibitive barrier that makes us less competitive. We must remain competitive.”
Any “virtual currency company” that wishes to offer services in New York must have a BitLicense. This has been the case since 2015. The state’s Department of Financial Services (DFS), the license guarantees that residents have access to the virtual currency market in a well-regulated manner and that the state is at the “center of technological innovation” and forward-looking regulation.
Many cryptocurrency firms have moved out of New York since the licensing was first introduced. Recent calls for regulatory relief and the removal of restrictions focus on the license which costs $5,000 and has unclear capital requirements.
Similar: Eric Adams can do what? New York City’s limits to becoming a crypto hub
The state capital has a stricter regulation approach to cryptocurrency than Adams. The Senate was presented with a bill Tuesday by the New York State Assembly. It would ban all new proof of work (PoW), cryptocurrency mining facilities that use carbon energy for two years.
Governor Kathy Hochul signed a law on April 9 requiring BitLicensed companies to pay assessment fees in order to cover regulatory operating expenses incurred through the DFS. This could place fees up to tens or thousands of dollars per year on the firms.
Adams stated, “It is imperative we work with state legislators and regulators.”