Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cryptocurrency Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances cryptocurrency-kiosk bill after industry pushback; members seek more negotiation
Summary
A bill requiring money-transmitter licensure, operator registration, law-enforcement training, quarterly reporting, and transaction/fee limits for cryptocurrency kiosks was passed out of committee for further work despite industry warnings that proposed fee caps and low limits could curtail legitimate business.
The committee heard a lengthy presentation and public testimony on proposed amendments to address criminal fraud at cryptocurrency kiosks (often called crypto ATMs). Scott Elder and committee staff summarized a two-pronged legislative approach: strengthen law-enforcement and prosecutorial capacity with required training and certification and impose operator-level requirements including a money‑transmitter license, operator registration, transaction limits (draft: $1,000 per customer per day; $2,000 cumulative for customers with fewer than five prior transactions) and a 3% fee cap. The bill would require blockchain-analytics safeguards to block transfers to known fraudulent addresses and mandate prominent fraud warnings and receipts in the customer's chosen language.
Consumer advocates and law-enforcement supporters told the committee they have seen large losses, with one AARP witness citing a Sandy resident who lost more than $1,000,000 across schemes involving ATMs and other platforms. "We really appreciate all of that, and the money transmitter license. I think that all that is excellent," said Joe Hirbayashi of AARP Utah, praising the fee cap and daily limits as consumer protections.
Industry witnesses agreed with training and licensing components but urged changes to fee caps and transaction thresholds. Ethan McClellan, representing Bitcoin Depot, warned the proposed limits "would make it impossible for us to do business in the state of Utah," saying a 3% fee cap and low permanent transaction limits would be economically unviable and could suppress law‑enforcement reporting tied to federal SAR thresholds. "3%, we would not be able to stay in business," McClellan said. Claire Wolfson (CoinFlip) echoed concerns about transaction thresholds and recommended aligning thresholds with federal SAR/reporting practices (examples cited: $2,000 SAR threshold).
Committee members expressed a range of views: some called the draft among the most aggressive in the U.S. on anonymous cash-to-crypto conversion and warned about government surveillance implications; others emphasized the urgency of protecting seniors and victims of fraud. Representative Burton moved a substitute motion to pass the draft out favorably so the committee could continue negotiating thresholds and fee language in the interim; the substitute carried on a recorded voice tally of 11 yes, 2 no (nays: Representative Johnson and Representative McPherson). Sponsors said they would continue working with industry and consumer advocates during the next two months and in session hearings.
The committee’s recorded outcome advances the draft as a committee bill while signaling that transaction limits and fee caps are subjects for further refinement before final session votes.
