I am not very knowledgeable about the particularities of these U.S. states, but as in the case of Arizona, it seems to me a double-edged sword. On the one hand, I'd rather see legislation introduced to regulate Bitcoin rather than ban it, but on the other hand, I don't know if all this is going to end up in more and more state control through KYC rules. My guess is that it will, and I don't see how there could be massive global adoption otherwise, as states are not going to let huge amounts of money escape their control.
People are afraid of the lack of regulatory cover and therefore the existence of regulations is good.
Privacy has value and it is difficult for the average user to maintain privacy, there is no problem with KYC for most users.
Decentralization means that the money is not in the hands of the government.
The government wants to know where this money is. When they knows, they will own it.
The problem they have is not in obtaining the money, but rather in not hiding it from them.
That's even more positive. So this state is now planning to regulate the crypto assets and willing to provide a legal framework around it. Also they are planning for inclusion of financial institutions within the framework. These are positive developments.
I don't know how the final version of the law will be.
