Minnesota Moves to Ban Crypto Kiosks Over Fraud

TheNewsCryptoPublicado a 2026-02-27Actualizado a 2026-02-27

Resumen

Minnesota lawmakers are advancing a bill, House File 3642, to ban all cryptocurrency kiosks in the state. This action follows law enforcement testimony linking these machines to a significant increase in elder fraud cases. Officials cited instances where elderly victims lost substantial savings, with one individual sending half her monthly income to scammers. Despite 2024 regulations that imposed consumer protections like disclosure requirements and a $2,000 daily transaction limit, these measures were deemed insufficient to prevent fraud. The proposed ban targets physical kiosks but would not affect online cryptocurrency transactions. This move aligns with a broader national and international trend of increasing oversight on crypto kiosks due to fraud concerns.

Minnesota lawmakers are advancing legislation that would prohibit cryptocurrency kiosks across the state. The proposal follows testimony from law enforcement officials who linked the machines to a surge in elder fraud cases.

Representative Erin Koegel introduced House File 3642 earlier this week. The bill seeks to ban the placement and operation of any virtual currency kiosk in Minnesota. Lawmakers would repeal nearly two dozen statutory provisions that currently regulate the industry.

Koegel told the House Commerce, Finance, and Policy Committee that officers have identified kiosks as a prime tool for scammers targeting vulnerable residents.

Law Enforcement Details Elder Fraud Impact

Woodbury Police Detective Lynn Lawrence described cases in which elderly residents lost significant portions of their savings. One victim on a fixed income completed at least 10 Bitcoin transactions over six months. She sent roughly half of her monthly income to scammers.

Lawrence stated that the victim ultimately required assistance from adult protection services. The woman feared she would lose her housing due to the financial losses.

The Minnesota Department of Commerce reported 70 kiosk-related complaints last year, totaling $540,000 in reported losses. Approximately 48% of affected consumers received partial refunds, averaging 16% of the total loss.

Minnesota currently hosts about 350 licensed kiosks operated by eight to ten companies.

2024 Safeguards Deemed Insufficient

The state introduced regulatory laws in 2024 to control fraud. The laws required the operators to disclose that cryptocurrency is not legal tender and that the transaction is irreversible. The law also required a $2,000 daily limit for new customers and a full refund in specified fraud conditions.

It is now argued that the measures have not prevented scams. Sam Smith, government relations director at the Minnesota Department of Commerce, stated that prior consumer protection efforts have not delivered sufficient results.

House File 3642 would repeal the existing regulatory framework entirely. The ban applies specifically to physical kiosks. Residents would still retain access to online cryptocurrency transactions.

Wider National and International Crackdown

Minnesota’s plan is in line with the regulatory movement. In August, Illinois passed the Digital Asset Kiosk Act, requiring registration of operators, real-time customer support, and a maximum 18% transaction fee.

Globally, New Zealand introduced a country-wide ban on cryptocurrency ATMs in July 2025 as part of anti-money laundering regulations. In Australia, regulators have also moved to broaden their powers to control high-risk financial services, such as crypto kiosks.

Regulators are now recognizing crypto access points as possible sources of fraud. Some argue that education and regulation could be more effective than banning kiosks.

Minnesota lawmakers will continue debating the proposal in committee. If enacted, the state would join a growing list of jurisdictions tightening oversight of cryptocurrency kiosks in response to fraud concerns.

Highlighted Crypto News:

MetaMask Card Goes Live in the U.S., Enabling Crypto Payments with On-Chain Rewards

TagsBitcoin ATMCrypto Bancrypto fraudCrypto Lawpolicy

Preguntas relacionadas

QWhy are Minnesota lawmakers proposing to ban cryptocurrency kiosks?

AMinnesota lawmakers are proposing to ban cryptocurrency kiosks because law enforcement officials have linked them to a significant increase in elder fraud cases, where scammers have used the machines to target vulnerable residents.

QWhat was the financial impact of kiosk-related fraud reported by the Minnesota Department of Commerce last year?

AThe Minnesota Department of Commerce reported 70 kiosk-related complaints last year, totaling $540,000 in reported losses.

QWhat specific safeguards did Minnesota introduce in 2024 to control crypto kiosk fraud, and why are they considered insufficient?

AIn 2024, Minnesota introduced laws requiring operators disclose that cryptocurrency is not legal tender, that transactions are irreversible, impose a $2,000 daily limit for new customers, and provide a full refund in specified fraud conditions. They are deemed insufficient because they have not prevented scams, according to testimony from the Minnesota Department of Commerce.

QHow does the proposed ban in Minnesota fit into a larger regulatory trend?

AMinnesota's proposed ban is part of a wider national and international crackdown. For example, Illinois passed the Digital Asset Kiosk Act with new registration and fee rules, New Zealand implemented a country-wide ban on crypto ATMs, and Australia is broadening its powers to control high-risk financial services like crypto kiosks.

QIf the ban is enacted, will Minnesota residents lose all access to buying cryptocurrency?

ANo, the ban applies specifically to physical kiosks. Residents would still have access to online cryptocurrency transactions.

Lecturas Relacionadas

GPT-5.6 Countdown: Abandon the Illusion of a Single API, Computational Iteration Can't Outpace a Single Page of Compliance

In mid-June, three seemingly independent industry events—the compliance-driven throttling of Fable 5, the open-sourcing of GLM-5.2, and the leaked release timeline for GPT-5.6—are pushing the global AI industry toward a watershed moment. These shifts signal a fundamental restructuring of the industry's underlying logic. First, **"usability" has substantially overtaken "advanced capabilities"** as the primary weight, pushing the global large language model (LLM) supply chain into a "dual-track" phase of controlled closed-source and local open-source coexistence. Second, **the competitive moats of closed-source giants are shifting**. Their technical focus is moving from "language intelligence" toward "spatial intelligence (world models)"—a domain heavily reliant on computing power. Third, faced with常态化 transnational compliance risks, **a "model-agnostic" decoupled design has become a survival necessity for application-layer developers to maintain business continuity.** The article details how Anthropic's Fable 5, despite its advanced engineering feats, was restricted for non-U.S. citizens within 72 hours of launch, highlighting how geopolitical compliance can instantly limit even the most advanced models. In response, the open-source camp, exemplified by Zhipu AI's MIT-licensed GLM-5.2, is gaining market share by offering stable performance improvements and significant cost advantages (up to 70% savings for enterprises), while achieving full adaptation with domestic semiconductor platforms. Meanwhile, closed-source leaders like OpenAI are pivoting. The anticipated GPT-5.6 reportedly shifts focus from language to spatial intelligence and world models, aiming to rebuild a generational gap in areas like 3D understanding, simulation, and industrial design that demand immense compute. The core conclusion is that the LLM supply chain's logic has changed. Enterprises must now evaluate infrastructure based on a composite of technical performance and policy compliance. For developers, complete reliance on a single closed-source API poses unacceptable risk. Implementing a truly model-agnostic architecture—enabling swift switches to compliant, locally deployable open-source alternatives—is no longer just good practice but a fundamental baseline for business continuity.

marsbitHace 1 hora(s)

GPT-5.6 Countdown: Abandon the Illusion of a Single API, Computational Iteration Can't Outpace a Single Page of Compliance

marsbitHace 1 hora(s)

Is the 'Token Subsidy War' Among AI Giants Almost Over?

The article discusses the ongoing "token subsidy war" among AI giants like OpenAI and Anthropic, questioning whether it's nearing its end. It reveals that current AI subscription prices are heavily subsidized, with some plans offering tokens at up to 70 times the actual cost to attract and retain heavy users, especially developers and enterprises. This strategy mirrors past internet-era subsidy battles, but with a key difference: AI tokens lack "lock-in" effects. Unlike ride-hailing or food delivery apps, users can easily switch between AI providers as APIs become standardized, making it difficult for companies to raise prices post-subsidy. The piece highlights a structural asymmetry in the competition. Giants like Google, with massive advertising revenue, can afford to subsidize tokens indefinitely, akin to using "tokens as a weapon." In contrast, venture-backed companies like OpenAI and Anthropic face pressure to become profitable, especially as they approach IPO. The article cites Google Ventures founder Bill Maris, who suggests Google could slash token prices by 80%, putting immense pressure on competitors. Two potential endgames are presented: the "internet service" model (subsidize, monopolize, then raise prices) and the "utility" model (tokens become a standardized, low-margin commodity like electricity). Given the low switching costs, the latter seems more likely. The competition may not have a single winner but could instead accelerate AI's evolution into a foundational, infrastructure-level technology, akin to a public utility. For now, users continue to benefit from heavily subsidized token costs.

marsbitHace 1 hora(s)

Is the 'Token Subsidy War' Among AI Giants Almost Over?

marsbitHace 1 hora(s)

Beyond the Stadium: The Profitable Games Surrounding the World Cup

"Beyond the Pitch: The Profit Game Around the World Cup" The FIFA World Cup transcends being a sporting spectacle, evolving into a massive global arena for speculation and profit-seeking. The 2026 tournament has amplified this dynamic, creating a multi-layered ecosystem of financial opportunism alongside the football. **Prediction markets** have surged into the mainstream. Platforms like Polymarket and Kalshi saw trading volumes for World Cup contracts soar, attracting new users with their financial trading model and high-profile, chain-based wealth stories that overshadow traditional sports betting in terms of growth and narrative. However, **traditional sportsbooks** remain the dominant force, leveraging established user habits, legal markets, and comprehensive product offerings to handle the vast majority of speculative wagers, with projections suggesting record-breaking betting volumes. Capital markets also react. **"Concept stocks"** in countries like South Korea and Japan experience volatile price swings based on team performance and anticipated fan spending on items like chicken, beer, and viewing parties, effectively becoming a stock market reflecting fan sentiment. The **ticket resale market** has become a sophisticated arena for arbitrage. Prices fluctuate wildly based on team draws and star power, with sellers sometimes listing tickets they don't yet own in a practice akin to short-selling, while FIFA's own "Right to Buy" tokens add another layer of speculative trading. **Collectibles and merchandise** offer another avenue. Panini sticker albums, with their inherent scarcity and nostalgic value, can become high-value collectibles. Limited-edition or locally themed jerseys command significant premiums on secondary markets, and even counterfeit vendors profit from fans' desire for affordable match-day identity. The **cryptocurrency** space has seen a frenzy of speculative, unauthorized World Cup-themed meme coins on chains like Solana. These tokens, often exploiting team names and player imagery, experience extreme pump-and-dump cycles, creating stories of massive gains for a few early entrants and steep losses for many others. Finally, an entire industry thrives on **providing information and tools** to other speculators. Developers create platforms like SeatSidekick to track ticket inventory and prices, while paid Telegram groups and subscriptions sell betting tips and predictions, monetizing the widespread desire for an informational edge. In essence, the World Cup has become a compressed, global laboratory for speculation. While the games determine champions on the field, a parallel, complex network of financial transactions—spanning prediction contracts, bets, stocks, tickets, collectibles, crypto, and information services—settles its own scores in the global market.

marsbitHace 2 hora(s)

Beyond the Stadium: The Profitable Games Surrounding the World Cup

marsbitHace 2 hora(s)

How Does Codex Use a Computer? Three Entry Points and Permission Boundaries

This article explains the three primary methods for Codex to interact with a computer, each with distinct use cases, permission boundaries, and trust levels. **1. Computer Use:** This offers the broadest access, allowing Codex to visually control and interact with the graphical user interface of authorized macOS/Windows apps, system settings, and even iOS simulators. It's ideal for tasks lacking APIs or structured tools, such as operating legacy software or multi-app workflows. However, it's the slowest method and has the widest permission scope, requiring careful supervision for sensitive actions. **2. Chrome Extension:** This grants Codex access to the user's logged-in Chrome browser state, including cookies, profiles, and open tabs. It's best for tasks requiring user identity across websites like Gmail, LinkedIn, Salesforce, or internal dashboards. Its key advantage is multi-tab control for complex workflows. While more powerful for browser-based tasks than Computer Use, it carries higher sensitivity as actions are performed under the user's identity. **3. In-App Browser:** This is a browser isolated within the Codex thread, separate from the user's personal browsing data. It excels in web development and debugging scenarios—previewing local servers, testing responsive layouts, or annotating designs directly on the page. Its isolation is a strength for development but a limitation for tasks requiring login sessions. The core principle is to choose the narrowest, safest, and most structured interface for the task. Use plugins or MCPs first, resort to visual control (Computer Use) only for GUI-dependent tasks, employ the Chrome extension for identity-reliant browser work, and prefer the In-App Browser for isolated development. **Appshots** are clarified as a fourth, complementary tool for *inputting* context—capturing a screenshot of a window to point Codex to something—rather than a method for Codex to *act*. Together, this layered approach highlights a key to AI agent productization: not granting unlimited permissions, but constraining them within clear boundaries for specific tasks while preserving user oversight.

marsbitHace 3 hora(s)

How Does Codex Use a Computer? Three Entry Points and Permission Boundaries

marsbitHace 3 hora(s)

Trading

Spot
Futuros
活动图片