CRYPTO Act Proposal: Unlicensed Operations In New York Could Lead To 15 Years In Prison

bitcoinist2026-01-17 tarihinde yayınlandı2026-01-17 tarihinde güncellendi

Özet

A new bill called the "CRYPTO Act" has been proposed in New York, aiming to impose stricter regulations on digital asset firms. Introduced by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg and State Senator Zellnor Myrie, the legislation would criminalize unlicensed cryptocurrency operations, including exchanging, trading, or transporting digital assets. Currently, such activities only face civil penalties. Under the proposed law, unlicensed operations could be classified as a felony, with penalties ranging from a misdemeanor to up to 15 years in prison for transactions exceeding $1 million annually. The bill aims to align state regulations with federal standards and combat money laundering and illicit activities facilitated by what Bragg described as a "shadow financial system." The push for stronger oversight coincides with concerns from federal lawmakers regarding the SEC's enforcement approach toward digital asset securities.

On Thursday, a new legislation was proposed in New York that aims to impose additional regulations on digital asset firms. The proposed law, known as the “CRYPTO” Act—short for “Cryptocurrency Regulation Yields Protections, Trust, and Oversight”—would make it illegal for digital asset firms to operate without the necessary licenses.

The announcement came from Manhattan District Attorney (DA) Alvin L. Bragg, Jr., and New York State Senator Zellnor Myrie, who emphasized the urgency of regulating the cryptocurrency marketplace in the State.

NY’s Proposed Crypto Bill

According to the duo’s press statement, organizations that exchange, trade, or transport cryptocurrencies in New York are required to register for a virtual currency license. Failure to do so has resulted in merely civil sanctions.

In contrast, the proposed CRYPTO Act would introduce criminal penalties for operating without a license, bringing New York’s regulatory framework closer to that of the federal system, where unauthorized conduct can result in up to five years in prison.

The new Act aims to ensure that digital asset businesses adhere to the same levels of diligence and transparency as traditional money transmitters.

Under the new legislation, unlicensed operations would fall under the category of Unlicensed Virtual Currency Business Activity, leading to a series of graduated penalties based on the value of the transactions involved.

Offenders could face charges ranging from a Class A misdemeanor to a Class C felony for activities involving $1 million or more within a year, potentially resulting in sentences of 5 to 15 years in state prison.

A “Shadow Financial System”

District Attorney Bragg expressed concern about the growth of cryptocurrency, describing it as a “shadow financial system” that facilitates money laundering and other criminal activities. “Crypto is the go-to means for bad actors to move and hide the proceeds of crime,” he stated.

Bragg further urged that the time has come for unlicensed cryptocurrency businesses to face criminal repercussions for not adhering to due diligence requirements.

Senator Myrie echoed Bragg’s sentiments, noting, “As the use of crypto has grown, so has illicit activity.” He emphasized that New York, as a major financial hub, must take seriously its regulatory responsibilities.

Myrie’s bill aims to align the state with the 18 other jurisdictions that have made unlicensed virtual currency transactions criminal offenses, to enhance consumer protection against potential fraud and scams.

This legislative push coincides with a letter from House Democrats to Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Chair Paul Atkins, in which several lawmakers urged the reinstatement of enforcement actions against digital asset firms.

The letter sent on Thursday and signed by Representatives Maxine Waters, Sean Casten, and Brad Sherman, expressed deep concerns regarding the SEC’s recent retreat from prosecuting violations related to “digital asset securities.”

The daily chart shows the total crypto market cap valuation dropping below $3.2 trillion. Source: TOTAL on TradingView.com

Featured image from DALL-E, chart from TradingView.com

İlgili Sorular

QWhat is the full name of the CRYPTO Act and what does it stand for?

AThe full name is the 'Cryptocurrency Regulation Yields Protections, Trust, and Oversight' Act.

QWhat is the maximum prison sentence proposed for unlicensed crypto operations involving over $1 million in transactions?

AThe maximum proposed prison sentence is 15 years in state prison.

QWhich two officials announced the proposed CRYPTO Act legislation?

AManhattan District Attorney Alvin L. Bragg, Jr. and New York State Senator Zellnor Myrie announced the proposed legislation.

QHow did District Attorney Bragg describe the cryptocurrency marketplace?

ADistrict Attorney Bragg described it as a 'shadow financial system' that facilitates money laundering and other criminal activities.

QWhat was the main concern expressed by House Democrats in their letter to the SEC Chair?

AThey expressed deep concerns regarding the SEC's recent retreat from prosecuting violations related to 'digital asset securities'.

İlgili Okumalar

GitHub, Transfixed by AI

On the night of February 9th, GitHub suffered a major outage caused by a simple configuration change—reducing a cache refresh interval from 12 to 2 hours—that triggered a cascade of failures. This was not an isolated event, but part of a broader pattern. In early 2026, GitHub experienced at least 8 major incidents, failing to meet its promised 99.9% availability. These outages stemmed from structural issues: explosive growth in load, tight service coupling, and insufficient protection against abnormal traffic. This unprecedented load is driven by AI Agents. In 2025, GitHub handled ~1 billion commits. By 2026, weekly commits reached 275 million, projecting to ~14 billion for the year—a 14x increase. AI tools like Claude Code now contribute 4.5% of all public repository commits, with weekly submissions surging 25x in just three months. AI-generated pull requests jumped from 4 million to 17 million per month in half a year. Unlike human developers, AI Agents work continuously, generating commits at a scale that overwhelms infrastructure designed for human rhythms. The surge also shattered GitHub's business model. Copilot's flat-rate pricing, based on assisting human developers, became unsustainable as Agentic AI sessions consumed resources worth hundreds of dollars for a few dollars in fees. In response, GitHub imposed usage limits and, by June 1st, shifted to a pay-per-use "AI Credits" system. Facing this new reality, GitHub realized a 10x scaling plan was insufficient. It announced a need to *redesign* its architecture for 30x current scale—decoupling services, adding fault isolation, and improving change management to prevent cascading failures. Other platforms like Stripe and AWS are facing similar challenges with AI Agents. Fundamentally, GitHub is transitioning from a human collaboration platform to an "exhaust pipe" for automated AI workflows. Its detailed post-mortem reports aim to maintain trust during this turbulent rebuild. The February outage was not just a technical glitch, but a signal of the software industry's entry into a new, AI-driven era.

marsbit22 dk önce

marsbit22 dk önce

Visualizing Musk's Wealth: $3.6 Million Per Hour, Average Person Needs 11 Million Years of Work

Elon Musk is on the verge of becoming the world's first trillionaire, with a current estimated net worth of $970 billion. This wealth, largely tied to equity in SpaceX and Tesla, translates to him accumulating roughly $992 per second or $3.6 million per hour on average over his 31-year career. His fortune surpasses the annual GDP of over 125 countries and represents about 3% of U.S. GDP, double the relative wealth of historical figures like John D. Rockefeller. For perspective, an average U.S. household earning the median income would need to work over 11 million years to amass a comparable sum. Musk's wealth could buy approximately 2.4 million average American homes, all 32 NFL teams plus every NBA team, or over 10,000 private jets with operating costs. The analysis highlights the staggering scale and concentration of modern wealth, driven by successes in electric vehicles, space exploration, and artificial intelligence.

marsbit25 dk önce

Visualizing Musk's Wealth: $3.6 Million Per Hour, Average Person Needs 11 Million Years of Work

marsbit25 dk önce

Both Suffer Massive Losses Exceeding $90 Billion, Which Is in Greater Peril: Strategy or Bitmine?

Facing massive paper losses exceeding $90 billion each amidst a sharp market downturn, "Digital Asset Treasury" (DAT) giants Strategy and Bitmine find themselves in a precarious position, but with different underlying risks. Strategy, heavily invested in Bitcoin (BTC), faces significant financial strain. Its strategy relies heavily on debt, including convertible notes and preferred stock (STRC) requiring substantial dividend payments. With its cash reserves dwindling and BTC offering no staking yield for cash flow, Strategy's high leverage makes it vulnerable. A continued price decline could force asset sales to meet obligations, potentially creating a negative feedback loop. Its market value has already fallen sharply. In contrast, Bitmine, an Ethereum (ETH) holder, appears on firmer financial ground. It primarily funds its purchases through equity offerings (like ATM programs), avoiding debt pressure. It also generates income by staking a large portion of its ETH holdings. While not immune to market drops and shareholder dilution concerns, Bitmine maintains more flexibility, recently announcing a new preferred share offering to raise further capital. The core divergence lies in their financing: Bitmine uses equity (investor money), while Strategy uses debt (borrowed money). Consequently, Bitmine currently faces less immediate liquidity pressure than Strategy, which must navigate the dual challenge of servicing debt/dividends and a declining core asset (BTC) price.

marsbit29 dk önce

Both Suffer Massive Losses Exceeding $90 Billion, Which Is in Greater Peril: Strategy or Bitmine?

marsbit29 dk önce

Both Suffer Losses Exceeding $9 Billion, Which Is More at Risk: Strategy or Bitmine?

As Bitcoin and Ethereum prices drop significantly, two major corporate treasury holders, Strategy and Bitmine, are facing massive unrealized losses—approximately $100 billion and $90 billion, respectively. The article compares their financial health and underlying risks. Bitmine, holding over 5.4 million ETH, relies primarily on equity financing (like ATM offerings) and has substantial cash reserves, alongside staking income from its ETH holdings. It plans a $300 million perpetual preferred stock offering. In contrast, Strategy, holding Bitcoin, is burdened by significant convertible debt and preferred stock dividends, with cash reserves covering only about six months of its annual dividend obligations. Strategy's leverage is higher, and it faces potential liquidity pressure if BTC prices fall further, possibly forcing asset sales. While both companies are under pressure, Bitmine’s financial structure appears more resilient, whereas Strategy’s high leverage makes it more vulnerable to continued market declines.

Odaily星球日报33 dk önce

Both Suffer Losses Exceeding $9 Billion, Which Is More at Risk: Strategy or Bitmine?

Odaily星球日报33 dk önce

Where the AI Bubble Really Is: Which Layer of Players Are Naked

AI Bubble: Where It Really Is and Who's Swimming Naked This analysis dissects the AI industry not as a single entity but as a five-layer pyramid, arguing that bubbles are concentrated in specific tiers, not uniformly distributed. **Key Distinction from the 2000 Dot-com Bubble:** Unlike 2000, where companies had stock prices before revenue, today's leading AI players have massive, contract-backed revenue driving their valuations. Core infrastructure demand is real, with every GPU running at full capacity for paying customers. **The Five-Layer Pyramid & Bubble Assessment:** * **L0 (Fab/Manufacturing) & Top L4 (Leading AI Apps): NO BUBBLE.** Companies like TSMC, NVIDIA, major cloud providers (Microsoft, Google, Meta, Amazon), and top AI labs have real revenues and orders. Supply is tightly constrained by TSMC's disciplined capacity control and physical limits like power/land for data centers, preventing a supply glut. * **L1 (Memory): BATTLEGROUND.** Sky-high HBM margins could signal a new structural cycle or a classic "boom before bust." The oligopoly of three major players may enforce supply discipline, making this a high-stakes bet. * **L2 (Interconnect/Optical Modules): BUBBLE TERRITORY.** Companies like Lumentum and AAOI have seen stock surges (4-10x) far outpacing revenue growth. This hardware segment has lower physical barriers to expansion than fabs, allowing speculation. It mirrors the 2000 bubble's epicenter—optics. * **L3 (Infrastructure/"GPU Landlords"): VULNERABLE.** GPU leasing companies profit from the current compute shortage but own no long-term moat. Their business model relies on a temporary bottleneck that will ease as big tech expands and new tech (e.g., potential space-based data centers) emerges. * **L4 Long Tail (VC-backed Startups): STRONG BUBBLE SIGNALS.** VC funding concentration in AI is twice that of the 1999 peak. Many startups with little revenue use the valuation logic of successful giants to justify their own, creating high risk of a "valuation crunch" when funding dries up. **Critical Risks to Monitor:** 1. **GPU Depreciation & Accounting:** Companies extending the assumed useful life of GPUs artificially boost profits. The true economic life depends on future generational leaps from NVIDIA. 2. **"GPU Credit" & Off-Balance-Sheet Leverage:** Emerging structures where shell companies borrow to buy GPUs and lease them out (with chipmakers sometimes investing) move debt off major balance sheets. This echoes the "vendor financing" of 2000 and the securitization risks of 2008, though currently small-scale. 3. **TSMC Abandoning Caution:** If the primary supply bottleneck (TSMC's conservative capacity planning) breaks, runaway supply could trigger a bust. 4. **Algorithmic Efficiency Breakthrough:** A major leap in software efficiency could drastically reduce the need for raw compute hardware, undermining the investment thesis. **Conclusion:** The AI boom is expensive and has frothy areas, but its core is underpinned by real demand and physical supply constraints. The bubble risk is layered: most present in optical components, GPU leasing, and the long-tail startup ecosystem, while the foundational chip manufacturing and leading application layers remain relatively solid—for now.

marsbit41 dk önce

Where the AI Bubble Really Is: Which Layer of Players Are Naked

marsbit41 dk önce

İşlemler

Spot

Futures