Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Blockchain topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances blockchain bill; securities bureau warns against blanket exemptions, Sierra Club raises environmental concerns
Summary
House Bill 639 — a broad set of measures to clarify blockchain law, create a blockchain dispute docket and limit certain state regulatory actions — passed the committee but drew opposition from the Bureau of Securities Regulation and environmental groups. The Bureau said a provision would bar it from investigating investment contracts tied to
House Bill 639 passed the committee after extended debate, but witnesses and staff warned that key provisions needed revision.
Sponsor Representative Keith Ammon described the bill as an effort to make New Hampshire a more hospitable jurisdiction for blockchain businesses and to create a blockchain dispute docket modeled on other specialized court dockets. “We want to stay ahead of the game in this race for… a new financial system,” Ammon told the committee.
Eric Forcier, director of the New Hampshire Bureau of Securities Regulation, testified in opposition to a narrow part of the bill that would declare providing mining or staking services not to be the offering of a security or investment contract. Forcier said the bureau’s mandate is consumer protection and that passively investing money into another’s mining venture could meet the legal “Howey” test for an investment contract. He gave an example in which a New Hampshire resident invested roughly $250,000 in another person’s mining venture and lost the money; the bureau was able to investigate and obtain an order only because it had statutory authority to regulate investment contracts.
The Sierra Club also opposed the bill’s zoning and preemption language and raised concerns about energy use, waste electronics, and community impacts from large mining operations. Rep. Ammon and other supporters argued blockchain mining can complement renewable generation by absorbing excess grid capacity at times of surplus.
The committee voted to advance the bill (ought to pass) and asked the sponsor and bureau to work on amended language. The committee recorded a vote of 7‑2 in favor of advancement.
