I tried looking up some of Gavin Newsome's background on the internet and came across a book he wrote called Citizenville, which outlines the use of digital tools for democratic change. When we talk about democracy, we are not far from what is called freedom. Both in terms of the realm of freedom to decide opinions or determine the path of choice. In the book, he relates it to digital use, which means crypto is part of digital development itself. When Gavin Newsome urges every executive body to create a regulatory framework that means the freedom of companies dealing in crypto is restricted and controlled?
Few democracies are shackled, right? unfortunately, no one has linked crypto rules in his book.
The interesting thing about politicians in general, and quite specifically those who are Democrats, and quite precisely those Democrats from California; when they
say "freedom" they intend exact opposite.
I don't know much about this Gavin Newsome, although that article is an absolute mess. Can't believe they had to put the Warren Buffet quote in, and its almost coming across as why would Gavin Newsome do this sort of thing, considering there's so many warning sides. I'm sensing a little bias in this article. Anyway, on to the question; I imagine they'll regulate it through taxes right? If you think about it, California has some of the most wealthy people, and businesses in the world, and I imagine a lot of them will be invested in Bitcoin, so it makes sense to adjust taxes to suit them. I'm not at all familiar with how states work, and how they pass laws, but I'm assuming they'll attempt to adjust the tax rate for Bitcoin/cryptocurrencies to be more than that of fiat, that would be my thinking. Plus, they'll bring in legalisation which benefits their pockets when it comes to operating a business involved with cryptocurrencies.
I imagine this will be the case for quite a few states, and countries. Cryptocurrency companies will likely be put under higher levels of scrutiny, and be taxed higher than the standard tax threshold, they'll justify this with its volatile, and risky nature, while directly benefiting from it.
The US Constitution is intended to keep each state as a separate entity. It's essentially a contract that limits the power any level of government over a specific set of individual rights, but also sets limits on the Federal Government over the states. Since it's inception, of course there have been attempts to thwart those limits by power hungry federal representatives (Senate Congress,) judiciaries (Supreme Court,) and executives (Presidents.) But when the three branches collude, what can you do? Picture the EU after 246 years of "globalist" interference.
As it is, the states still have a significant amount of power over their citizens, and that's by design. Since it's a smaller government the idea is that it has more accurate representation of it's citizenry.
Of course Bitcoin is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but what is mentioned is that anything that is not within the scope of the fed is within the realm of the states. So, it's well within the state's rights to regulate anything that is not specifically limited as an "individual right."
