Topic: Could California make a regulated digital currency? (Read 697 times)

What would be the goal in making a state-exclusive digital currency? The American dollar works well enough and most of the products sold out in the market are produced by outsourced manufacturers. Hard to see them embracing another currency they would have to deal with.

i think still very dificult in USA country can regulated crypto curency
because SEC still not accepted crypto curency

but only digital curency, much digital curency is accepted in there paypal, skrill, solidtsurstpay and more is ready accepted and regulated in there

I know that this is not just what you were asking for, but have any of you noticed that New York made their own coin? maybe it is not from the government because it is descentralized and the govs didnt say anything about it. But a few days ago i was looking at their ANN and they were so serious, but the price of it was lower than Dogecoin (and much more supply than it)
But who knows, maybe we are going to see a token from california soon, nobody knows about it.

California can do whatever they want, and the people can decide on whether or not they want to use it. I'm not sure why they would though as government sponsored money has always been used to take away power from the debtors.

It is actually crazy how big of an economy that is for a single state, when you think about it. I mean the fact that one state out of 50 in a country has the 6th largest economy of all countries on the entire planet just goes to show how much money it must cost to live there. Like think about all of the poor countries around the world, and this single area is the richest... everyone there must be rich.

Separation is always hard. If this happens then get ready for difficulties. With regard to your theme is to use existing cryptocurrency you can't. You will have to create a new currency. In order for a state to exist it is necessary to have full control over the currency. Therefore, it is the complete opposite of bitcoin.

The state of california has the #6 largest economy in the entire world. The large economy translates to power & political influence. I think california like the UK (in comparison to the EU) pays more into the federal government than it receives. Both of those conditions could give california what it needs to secde and develop its own crypto. Although to be honest, california and new york are probably the two most corrupt states in the USA. I also seem to remember california passing a law not long ago giving communists a green light to hold political office which could be a bad sign.

The latest draft also includes an on-ramp for small startups, along the lines of the plan advocated since the BitLicense comment periods of last summer and in our state framework. This means that by meeting standards set by the legislation, a small company will be able to operate without paying the full licensing fee or meeting the full requirements of licensure.

Requires California ID can be spoofed/faked. The idea here is to keep regulation as fast/low cost and simple as possible.

I thought I would get much more feedback than this. You guys want to make money right? California is the 6th largest economy in the world, do you need a red carpet rolled out for you? Is this the Hollywood of cryptocurrency? You think you don't have to do any work? I'm talking about the first regulated digital currency based on the 6th largest economy in the world.

I'm only asking for feedback and you guys are almost silent.

I'm talking about the first cryptocurrency that is regulated and solid. We come up with a plan of regulations, we make a solid digital currency, you get in early and sit on it..... maybe California secedes within the next 15 years, we adopt it, you bank.

I like this idea, I'd get behind it.

Don't listen to the fools here saying "it won't work", Bitcoin was created in California.

You got a great story. The timing is solid with Trump and California's general extreme aversion to him. You've got need - California would have to create a currency to facilitate an exit.

Don't mine before you release the coin. Mining get's people interested and allows the value of the coin to grow organically and slowly allowing your coin to match enthusiasm and progress for Calexit.

The ICOs that do it wrong don't have any reason for existing and pre-mine coins before release.

Maybe have a requirement that the first to mine must be California residents, then open it up to US residents that support your movement. You could set up a requirement that requires a valid Driver's License to download the software required to mine.

PM me if you want more ideas. Good luck, keep at it!

Regulating and "taxing" on the mining side

To make things simple I think the "tax" (let's call it an administrative fee since saying "tax" implies official adoption in some way) should be on mining pools, maybe like 5% of their 1% cut.
This pays for the CalDollars advisory board, the inspections and audits done by the California government. Well, after years down the road when it actually gains value.

In order to do that and enforce it all the mining pool servers would have to be located in California and you would have to make it either impossible or useless to mine CalDollars by yourself outside of a mining pool.

This brings up technical questions that I need your help with as I don't have a full grasp of block chain:

Is it possible to keep people from mining unless they are part of a mining group?
Is it possible to keep people that are not part of a mining group from working on the same block as the one a mining group is working on?
If not, is there some way you could invalidate those shares as distributable and confiscate them for the CalDollars advisory board?
Is it possible to label a block illegally mined and untradeable if it did not get mined by a mining pool faster than they can quickly sell it?

Just a reminder China is making its own cryptocurrency.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-24/bitcoin-surges-record-high-china-prepares-its-own-digital-currency

I believe that having a well regulated digital currency with a tax built into it that pays for the regulations and enforcement and it represents the state of California which is the 6th largest economy in the world, would be so enticing, people would be wanting to get in early. In the beginning it would have to be subsidized by the state in the same way that the taxes that are going to come from legalization are going to come after the costs of inspections, licensing, etc.. So it would have to voted on, brought to the ballot.

The idea is to at some point later also pass legislation, allowing people choose to get their paychecks in CalDollars.

your idea are not bad,but it's just a theory and hard to become true.
first of all nothing can change the ruler of the cryptoworld aka 'Bitcoin',cryptoworld exist as long as Bitcoin stil alive.
even if you 'succeed' in creating your own 'national cryptocurrency' not many people will using it because it's a clone.
clone always be a clone that mean why would people will using this instead of using the real one ?
the different in value between both of it are great,
let say you're trying to introduce your 'cryptonationcurrency' to your country people ? even if they're agree with you how much people will using this coin comparing to total people using Bitcoin ? (if 100% of your people agree to it,it's still comparable what happened if they don't agree about it?)
and to implement it and regulating it in your country make it even harder,

how about just regulating Bitcoin in your town and make it even easier?

To plan something this big, it needs to come from the top because it goes beyond an individual but rather the entire community which might be difficult to penetrate of its not coming from the top considering the fact that its going to be a complete deviation of what people have come to know as their medium of exchange from time immemorial but if its going to be from the state, then the  relevant push can be made available to get the penetration rapid. And concerning regulation, yes its possible depending on how its coded.

Here's the problem. If we leave, the US dollar will plummet in value since we are the 6th largest economy in the world. That screws us along with the US. So we have to come up with a soft way out. There is a possibility that they won't let us leave by force, in that case they'll get sanctions on them which will further tank the US dollar. We have to make or adopt another currency but it's illegal to make a currency but not a digital one but there are issues I have with them:

1) Lack of regulations
1a) Lack of ability to enforce these regulations
1b) No tax to pay for the creation and enforcement of these regulations

2) Large value swings (no authority issuing guidelines on what factors should effect them and how much)

3) They are susceptible to natural disasters (solar flares, fires, floods, power outages, etc..). Banks are not required to make a hard copy record of each address and its balance and secure it in a protected structure.

Digital currencies are on their way to becoming the new "reserve currency" so we kind of don't have a choice.
And actually I'd call it CalDollars

The whole point of blockchain technology is decentralization and immutability, and they come with a price like very high energy consumption in comparison with centralized payment systems, and scalability problems (potentially solvable). Now, think about it, why would you need a decentralized coin if you want to create a new state with it's own sovereign territory and whatever laws you want? Sovereign California government doesn't get any benefits from decentralized Californiacoin (modeled after cryptoccurencies like BTC, LTC or ETH), so it should just create its own centralized digital money like PayPal or Skrill.


The solution is simple - buy Bitcoin.

I don't see any practicality of creating a new currency which is cloned and also CA is the part of USA, whose currency is considered to be one of the most strongest. Why would CA loose that opportunity? Also if the currency takes a hit from the worldwide population, then the economy of CA will be in danger.

If a country tries to create an original crypto currency along with the conventional currency system, it is better to experiment but not without the original currency they already have in place. So if the experiment fails, they will have something to make use of. If CA moves to create it's own digital currency, the consequence will not be good in any way.    

I think you are wrong about the oxymoron thing. I don't want to create a clone, I'm just asking as a general guide line, we'll take it from there.
The whole point here is, is it possible to create and regulate a digital currency? Can you put a tax into the code or add a tax in the transaction fees to pay for the enforcement of regulations. Can you enforce that all mining pool servers and wallet servers be located in California? If not can a coin be labeled illegal and unacceptable if it was obtained by breaking regulations.
Making a physical currency is illegal in the US but making a digital one isn't.
The digital currency we would make for California would be different than all others in that it would be regulated and based on real world indicators of the value of California to the rest of the world outlined by a yearly guide updated by an advisory council. This would help to curb wild value Swings.

It's pointless to create a new currency if you are just cloning an existing one. If your currency is not better than other currencies from technical standpoint - i.e. scalability, privacy, additional features, than you will just create inconvenience for users, by making them lose time and money on converting other currencies into your coin. There is more than 800 currencies and most of them aren't used for business transactions, because Bitcoin already works well for that. If we imagine that California will actually secede, most people who use crypto will stick with Bitcoin, and not with some new Californiacoin. And the whole point of national currency is to control national economy, so "national cryptocurrency" is an oxymoron.

Hi guys, I'm kind of new to digital currencies so you guys know more than me about this subject. I'm a follower of the Yes California Calexit facebook group which is a group that wants to separate from the US and become our own country.

The only problem with doing this is that as soon it looks like we are leaving the US the US dollar will plummet in value hurting both us and them so I'm writing an essay on creating a digital currency for California that we could eventually bring the mining to a halt and then give a month grace period for it to settle and then switch it to a printed currency.

It would be regulated - the servers for the wallets and mining pools would all be in California and it would be written in the legal agreement in the mining software that this is the case but everyone in the world could mine or trade it.

It would have an advisory board that would consist of economic experts from California 50%, 30% voted in from our top 10 trading partners, 10% cryptocurrency experts and 10% cyber security experts. This advisory board would issue all the recommended regulations which would then get adopted by whatever agency in California.

I'm trying to piece how all this would come together but I need to know from you if this is possible to regulate a digital currency like this and also which coin should we model it after. Right now I'm thinking we should model it after litecoin because of its speed in transactions and how its block chain doesn't grow at a fast rate like Bitcoin and Ethereum.