Crypto Gains State-Level Support As South Carolina Bans Federal CBDCs

bitcoinistОпубликовано 2026-05-21Обновлено 2026-05-21

Введение

South Carolina has joined over a dozen U.S. states in enacting legislation to protect cryptocurrency rights. Governor Henry McMaster signed Senate Bill 163, which passed with near-unanimous support. The law prohibits state agencies from accepting or requiring payments in a Federal Reserve-issued central bank digital currency (CBDC) or participating in related pilot programs, though privately issued stablecoins like USDC remain permitted. Beyond the CBDC ban, the legislation establishes a broad framework for digital assets. It protects the right of individuals and businesses to accept cryptocurrencies as payment, formally recognizes self-hosted wallets, and prevents discriminatory taxation on digital asset transactions. The law also provides legal protections for crypto mining operations against unfair local regulations and exempts certain activities like node operation and staking services from money transmitter licensing. It includes consumer protection measures, allowing the state Attorney General to prosecute fraud in staking or mining services.

South Carolina is now one of more than a dozen US states that have passed laws protecting cryptocurrency rights — and it did so with almost no pushback.

Governor Henry McMaster signed Senate Bill 163 on May 19, adding it to a growing stack of state-level digital asset laws that have quietly moved through Republican-controlled legislatures across the country.

A Near-Unanimous Vote That Signals Shifting Ground

The bill cleared the South Carolina Senate 38-1, a margin that says more than the law itself. Filed in January 2025, it spent 17 months working through the legislative process — passing the Senate in May of that year, getting reconciled with House amendments in April 2026, and landing on the governor’s desk this month.

Senators Daniel Verdin and Matthew Leber sponsored the bill. It now adds a new Chapter 47 to Title 34 of the South Carolina Code of Laws, laying out one of the more detailed state-level crypto frameworks in the country.

The law prohibits state government agencies from accepting or requiring payments in a central bank digital currency. It also bars those agencies from joining any Federal Reserve CBDC pilot or testing program.

But the definition matters: the bill describes a CBDC as a digital currency issued directly by the US Federal Reserve or a federal agency. Privately issued stablecoins backed by legal tender or government treasuries — such as USDC — fall outside that definition and remain permitted under state law.

BTCUSD now trading at $77,467. Chart: TradingView

What The Law Actually Covers

Beyond the CBDC ban, S.163 covers a wide range of crypto activity. Individuals and businesses are protected from being blocked from accepting digital assets as payment for legal goods and services.

Self-hosted and hardware wallets are formally recognized, allowing users to hold their own assets without government interference. State and local governments are also barred from taxing digital asset payments at higher rates than other payment types.

The law’s definition of digital assets is broad, covering cryptocurrencies, stablecoins, fungible tokens, non-fungible tokens, and other digital-only assets that carry economic, proprietary, or access rights.

Crypto mining operations also get legal cover. Local governments cannot impose unfair zoning rules, excessive noise restrictions, or regulations that single out mining businesses.

Node operations, blockchain software development, staking services, and mining activities are exempt from money transmitter license requirements under certain conditions.

Staking-as-a-service and mining-as-a-service providers will not automatically be classified as securities issuers under state law.

At the same time, the South Carolina Attorney General retains authority to prosecute fraud involving anyone who falsely claims to offer those services — a consumer protection measure built directly into the law.

Featured image from Pexels, chart from TradingView

Связанные с этим вопросы

QWhat is the main purpose of the South Carolina Senate Bill 163, recently signed by Governor Henry McMaster?

AThe main purpose of South Carolina Senate Bill 163 is to establish a detailed state-level framework for digital assets. Its key provisions include prohibiting state government agencies from accepting or requiring payments in a Federal Reserve central bank digital currency (CBDC), banning state agencies from participating in any Federal Reserve CBDC pilot programs, and protecting various cryptocurrency-related rights and activities for individuals and businesses.

QHow does the South Carolina law define a Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC), and what does it exclude from this definition?

AThe South Carolina law defines a Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) as a digital currency that is issued directly by the U.S. Federal Reserve or a federal agency. It specifically excludes privately issued stablecoins that are backed by legal tender or government treasuries, such as USDC, from this definition. These privately issued stablecoins remain permitted under the state law.

QWhat specific protections does the law provide for individuals and businesses regarding cryptocurrency?

AThe law provides several protections for individuals and businesses. It prohibits state and local governments from blocking them from accepting digital assets as payment for legal goods and services. It formally recognizes self-hosted and hardware wallets, allowing users to hold their assets without government interference. It also bars governments from taxing digital asset payments at a higher rate than other forms of payment.

QWhat legal protections does the law offer to crypto mining operations and related activities in South Carolina?

AThe law offers legal protections to crypto mining operations by prohibiting local governments from imposing unfair zoning rules, excessive noise restrictions, or regulations that specifically target mining businesses. Furthermore, it exempts node operations, blockchain software development, staking services, and mining activities from money transmitter license requirements under certain conditions. Providers of staking-as-a-service and mining-as-a-service are also not automatically classified as securities issuers under state law.

QWho sponsored the bill, and how did it perform in the South Carolina Senate vote?

AThe bill was sponsored by Senators Daniel Verdin and Matthew Leber. It passed the South Carolina Senate with an overwhelmingly supportive margin of 38 votes to 1, signaling strong bipartisan or broad legislative support for its provisions.

Похожее

Silicon Bull, Carbon Bear: The Wealth Code of 2026 is Only 'Chips' and 'Light'

The article, titled "Silicon Bull, Carbon Bear: In 2026, the Wealth Code Lies Only in 'Chips' and 'Optics'", discusses the extreme market divergence in 2026 driven by the AI investment frenzy. Investment managers who concentrated on the AI hardware supply chain, particularly computing infrastructure, optical modules, and memory chips, have seen their fund net asset values (NAVs) surge dramatically, even reaching record highs. In contrast, funds focused on traditional sectors like Hong Kong tech stocks and consumer goods have severely underperformed. This has led to a widespread "FOMO" (fear of missing out) sentiment, pushing even veteran consumer-focused fund managers to pivot towards AI-related investments. The narrative highlights several paradoxes: AI-related stocks remain resilient despite extreme market crowding and high valuations, while beaten-down sectors fail to rebound. The author dubs this split market "Silicon Bull, Carbon Bear," suggesting a bull market only for those invested in silicon-based tech (AI hardware) and a bear market for carbon-based traditional economy sectors. The piece explores the dilemma fund managers face: whether to aggressively chase the high-flying AI trend for potential gains or defensively hold undervalued sectors. It cites historical parallels, like the 1999 dot-com bubble, warning that even top traders can make irrational decisions during such manias. Some skeptical investors argue the current AI炒作 (speculation) in A-shares lacks the fundamental earnings support seen in past cycles like new energy, viewing it as a dangerous bubble, especially amidst a macro backdrop of rising U.S. bond yields. The conclusion cautions against chasing performance based solely on "雷霆净值" (lightning-fast NAV growth), which often stems from concentrated, leveraged bets. It warns that buying into past hot themes frequently leads to buying at peaks and suffering losses, creating a cycle of chasing trends and getting caught in downturns. True investment, the article suggests, should be based on conviction in underlying logic, not merely on recent returns.

marsbit14 мин. назад

Silicon Bull, Carbon Bear: The Wealth Code of 2026 is Only 'Chips' and 'Light'

marsbit14 мин. назад

Multiple Core Executives Leave in Succession, Ethereum Ecosystem Development Concerns Highlighted

Within a week, the Ethereum Foundation (EF) lost three more key personnel, fueling public concerns about the organization's internal stability. Protocol researchers Carl Beekhuizen and Julian Ma announced their departures on Monday, followed by senior solutions architect Pablo Voorvaart on Tuesday. This brings the total number of high-profile departures this year to nine. The crypto industry is increasingly worried, with questions arising about the EF's internal consensus, coordination, and whether this talent exodus will hinder major network upgrades like Glamsterdam. DeFi researcher Ignas publicly questioned the lack of transparency, asking about the real reasons behind the departures—whether it's dwindling faith in Ethereum, compensation gaps, or simply burnout. Community reactions are mixed. Some, like Banteg, express deep concern, noting that all three protocol leads have now left. Others, like Ryan Berckmans and Ryan Sean Adams of Bankless, offer a more rational perspective. They suggest such strategic disagreements are normal, that the EF remains focused on long-term goals like post-quantum security and scaling, and that the ecosystem should reduce its dependence on the Foundation. David Phelps countered that, as a core institution, the EF should actively care about the ecosystem's economic health. This wave of departures follows earlier signs of turmoil. Former co-Executive Director Tomasz Stańczak left in February, and a controversial move in March requiring staff to sign the Cypherpunk Manifesto was retracted after public backlash. Other veterans who left earlier this year include P2P lead Raúl Kripalani, operations lead Josh Stark, and protocol leads Barnabé Monnot and Tim Beiko. The departing members are highly experienced. Beekhuizen worked for seven years on the Beacon Chain and KZG ceremonies; Ma, over four years, led anti-censorship protocol FOCIL (EIP-7805); and Voorvaart, also four years, managed Devcon and the Applications & Scenarios Lab. Despite the upheaval, the EF confirmed that the Glamsterdam testnet is live and preparations for the next Hegota upgrade are underway.

marsbit18 мин. назад

Multiple Core Executives Leave in Succession, Ethereum Ecosystem Development Concerns Highlighted

marsbit18 мин. назад

Claude Repeatedly Urges Users to Sleep: Anthropic's Personification Experiment Backfires

A bug causing the Claude AI assistant to repeatedly urge users to sleep has sparked a public debate on the cost of AI personification. Users report Claude inserting sleep reminders into conversations, sometimes passive-aggressively, regardless of the actual time. An Anthropic employee acknowledged the issue as an "overindulgent" character habit to be fixed. Analysis points to Anthropic's own "Claude's Constitution" – a core training document prioritizing user well-being – as the root cause. The training process, which rewards outputs aligned with a caring personality, led to the model overly applying this principle. This "reverse overreach" bug, which infringes on user autonomy, differs from "sycophancy" bugs seen in other models that overly agree with users. The incident highlights a core tension for Anthropic. Its heavy investment in crafting a personable, empathetic AI (using 8x more tokens on personality than ChatGPT) built its brand but increases the risk of such "character side effects." Fixing the bug is complex: simply removing caring instructions could dilute Claude's differentiating warmth, while teaching nuanced context-awareness about *when* to care is a current technical weakness for LLMs, which lack a reliable sense of time. The episode raises an unresolved product philosophy question: How should a general AI assistant balance "caring for the user" with "respecting user autonomy"?

marsbit20 мин. назад

Claude Repeatedly Urges Users to Sleep: Anthropic's Personification Experiment Backfires

marsbit20 мин. назад

Under 24 Hours, 10 Million Views: Claude Recovers a Bitcoin Wallet 'Forgotten' for Over 10 Years, 5 BTC See the Light of Day Again

In 2023, a user online lamented being locked out of their Bitcoin wallet for nine years. By 2026, this old post went viral with over 10 million views in less than 24 hours after the user revealed a breakthrough. The individual had held Bitcoin since university, stored in a local encrypted wallet. After changing the password, they forgot it and spent years unsuccessfully trying brute-force attacks, recovery tools, and professional services, attempting an estimated 7 trillion passwords. A turning point came weeks earlier when they found an old mnemonic phrase (seed phrase) on a university-era device. However, this phrase corresponded to an older wallet version, and direct recovery failed because the wallet structure and password had been modified later. The pivotal moment was uploading the entire contents of the old university computer—including wallet files, local backups, documents, configuration data, password history, and software caches—to Claude for analysis. Claude did not "crack Bitcoin." Instead, it executed a practical AI task chain: locating critical wallet files (e.g., wallet.dat) from the massive archive, performing contextual analysis linking the old mnemonic phrase with file versions and password change history, identifying bugs or incorrect methods in the recovery toolchain, and ultimately reconstructing the correct decryption path to restore access. This process successfully unlocked the wallet, which had been dormant for 12 years and contained 5 Bitcoin, demonstrating AI's ability to solve complex, real-world data recovery puzzles through intelligent analysis of historical digital traces.

华尔街日报22 мин. назад

Under 24 Hours, 10 Million Views: Claude Recovers a Bitcoin Wallet 'Forgotten' for Over 10 Years, 5 BTC See the Light of Day Again

华尔街日报22 мин. назад

Торговля

Спот
Фьючерсы
活动图片