Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Payments Innovation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee backs bill allowing optional precious-metals-backed payment platforms for state transactions
Summary
The committee favorably recommended HB195, which authorizes the treasurer to competitively procure third-party precious-metals-backed payment platforms that meet state standards for vaulting, auditing and insurance; supporters said the measure is optional for vendors and does not replace the dollar.
Get email alerts on the Payments Innovation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The committee forwarded HB195, a bill authorizing the Treasurer’s Office to conduct a public procurement to allow existing third-party platforms that back electronic payments with physical precious metals to accept state transfers under defined standards.
Sponsor Representative Ken Ivory described the proposal as an optional transactional choice that would allow vendors and service providers to be paid via platforms backed by gold or silver, rather than requiring any physical-exchange of metal at the point of sale. He said the bill would set standards for vaulting, auditing and insurance and would not force the state to hold or pay vendors directly in metal.
Treasurer Oakes told the committee the program is intended to be limited and safe, supplying procurement oversight and clarifying tax treatment and trust requirements. The bill would authorize a transparent competitive process to select one or more vendors that meet the state’s requirements.
Proponents — including private-sector consultants and advocacy organizations — urged passage. Benjamin Schaffer (Citizens Finance) suggested clarifying the state’s role as a system participant without creating a state monopoly; Mike Carter (consultant) praised Utah’s leadership on transactional gold; Gail Rezika (Utah Eagle Forum) urged adoption.
Committee members asked operational questions about fees, redemption, and whether the state would bear transaction costs; the sponsor said merchant fees would be borne according to merchant agreements and the RFP process would surface specifics. The committee voted to advance the bill with a favorable recommendation.
