South Dakota’s Bold Move: Redefining Money to Exclude Cryptocurrencies

Setting the Stage: What’s Happening in South Dakota?

In a surprising turn of events, lawmakers in South Dakota have drafted an amendment to the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) that seeks to redefine money. Now, before you roll your eyes and think, “Here we go again—more government meddling!”, let’s delve deeper into what this actually means.

What’s the New Definition of Money?

According to the 117-page amendment introduced by Republican Mike Stevens, money is now described as a “medium of exchange” authorized by a government—either domestic or foreign. Interestingly, this would allow Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) to be included, but cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin and Ethereum? Not so much.

Here’s the fine print:

• The amendment specifies that money includes monetary units established by intergovernmental organizations.
• It explicitly excludes any electronic records that existed before their official government sanction.

Why Should You Care?

While some may shrug this off as just another political maneuver, the implications are significant. With the definition of money being narrowed, it could create obstacles for crypto businesses and users in South Dakota, pushing them towards the boundaries of legality. Andy Roth, head of the conservative State Freedom Caucus Network, expressed his outrage, warning that this could pave the way for retailers to favor CBDCs over everything else—including Bitcoin.

A Clash of Ideologies

It’s fascinating how laws like these play into the broader political narrative. For instance, the so-called “CBDC Anti-Surveillance State Act,” introduced by Minnesota Republican Tom Emmer, stands in stark contrast to South Dakota’s initiative. The battleground seems to be crystallizing around the idea of governmental control versus free market principles. One side wants to establish a digital dollar, while the other wants to keep crypto thriving.

The Bigger Picture: What Lies Ahead?

Juliette Moringiello, a member of the U.S. Uniform Law Commission, has pointed out that this could lead to major legal complications, especially if businesses or individuals involved in cryptocurrencies find themselves in bankruptcy. There’s no clear law pathway defined under this new framework. If it all sounds messy, that’s because it certainly is.

Should this bill pass (which is slated for July 1, 2024), it may set a precedent that affects the remaining states. But don’t lose hope! If you’re looking to take action, maybe set up a campfire and rally your friends; we might just need a modern-day revolution—digital style!