Governor of South Dakota, Kristi Noem, has decided to take a stand against a CBDC bill that has rejected the status of cryptocurrencies as money. The bill postulates that only CBDCs that are issued by the Central Bank are going to be classified in this particular category.
It is important to note that government organizations have been using blockchain as the basis of the technology to create their native CBDC projects.
Noem was interviewed by Tucker Carlson, who claimed that this bill should not be ignored. He claimed that if such as bill was to go unchallenged, it could prove fatal to the financial freedom of every citizen.
According to Noem, he plans to veto the bill during the next voting round. He informed the interviewer that under the pretext of this bill, the government might be able to set CBDC as the new legal tender without any legal resistance.
Speaking on the matter of the CBDC bill, Noem claimed that the government introduced it under the pretense of an update of the Uniform Commercial Code or UCC.
UCC is a regulatory document that is used as the standard for governing all commercial transactions within a state. He explained that bans and other financial institutions govern based on the regulations mentioned in UCC.
He told the media that while his team was examining the bill, they understood the meaning of the bill they stumbled upon the part where it related to the legal definition of cryptocurrencies.
Noem claimed that while the bill was easing the path of legislative adoption for CBDCs, it was also banning any other type of currency, such as digital assets, from gaining that status.
South Dakota Governor Considers the CBDC Bill as a Threat to the Cryptocurrency Industry
According to the statement issued by Noem, the new changes in the CBDC bill pose a threat to the stability of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. He claimed that such changes are taking place concurrently across 20 other states.
He views this bill as a way for government agencies to assume full control of the financial networks. He specified the bill as House Bill#1193.
He argued that money should not be limited to a product that is issued by an intergovernmental organization. He claimed that the legal definition of money is broad for all mediums of exchange.
Noem said that legal tender could be a product that operates as a unit of account that has been set by an intergovernmental authority. He also argues that the term medium of exchange was not inclusive of digital records and agreements when it was first adopted by the government.