Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Precious Metals Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lawmakers hold lengthy hearing on bill to recognize gold and silver as transactional legal tender; industry split
Summary
The committee held a multi‑hour hearing on Senate Bill 424 to make gold and silver legal tender and set up a bullion depository and electronic payment rails. Testimony split sharply: private precious‑metals firms and anti‑state‑entry groups opposed it; fintech and advocacy witnesses argued for limited state guardrails and expanded access. The committee made the bill hearing‑only and scheduled further testimony on Tuesday.
Senate Bill 424 — the "transactional gold and silver" proposal — drew a large, often heated hearing in the Banking Committee and was set as a hearing‑only item for further consideration. The sponsor described the bill as an exercise of state authority under Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution to recognize gold and silver as legal tender, create a bullion depository commission and enable electronic, fractional gold transactions via private vendors under state oversight.
Sponsor testimony said the program would be optional, self‑funded by storage and transaction fees and could be administered through contracts with existing custodians: "we would not have any cost to the state in setting this up," the sponsor said. He framed the proposal as increasing access so consumers could buy fractional amounts of gold and spend them electronically without going through brokers.
The hearing produced starkly differing views. Opponents warned the state would be entering and distorting a private market, risk taxpayer exposure and not prevent misleading marketing claims. Kim Coleman of Goldback testified: "We oppose the state of Georgia entering the financial services arena and the precious metals retail market," adding the private sector already provides secure custody and payment services.
JP Cortez of the Sound Money Defense League also opposed the bill, arguing that proponents' claims about federal tax effects and confiscation protections are misleading and that private platforms already allow transactional gold without state involvement. "This bill runs counter to sound money principles...and is generally a step in the wrong direction," he said.
Industry and fintech witnesses gave countervailing testimony. Jason Cousins, founder and CEO of GlintPay, noted private platforms already let consumers transact with gold and said state recognition could provide additional consumer protections and legal clarity for users. "We're the first company in the world to enable physical gold to be used in electronic payments," he told the committee.
Multiple witnesses with technical and national security backgrounds cautioned for different reasons: John Yaros, a fintech consultant and former federal official, said the proposal would produce consumer confusion and unknowable taxpayer risk if state structures failed or implied federal protections that do not exist. Mike Carter, a national‑security consultant who supported the bill, characterized it as a consumer movement to provide a hedge against inflation and urged limited government 'guardrails' to prevent bad actors.
Committee members raised a range of practical issues: where bullion would be stored, whether the state would ever house deposits physically, how taxation would be treated (witnesses clarified that state law can affect state capital‑gains treatment but not federal tax obligations) and whether recognition would mislead consumers about state guarantees akin to FDIC insurance.
Because of the many sign‑ups and length of testimony, the chair announced the item would be hearing only and the committee planned to reconvene on Tuesday to take more testimony and consider next steps. No vote was taken.
The bill will return for additional hearings and questions; proponents and opponents both asked the committee to study actual bill text and vendor models before any final action.
