Committee Summary for Commission to Study Stable Tokens (11/12/2025)

Bill/Time	Type	Title	Sponsor
Unclear 00:09:32.160 - 9:04:48 AM	General Working Session	Unclear

Unclear: Chair (Unnamed) Information Only00:09:32.160 - 9:04:48 AM; The chair calls the commission to order at 10:04 on November 12th for the Commission to Study Stable Tokens, RWA Asset Tokenization, and Blockchain-Based Trusts. Refers to the agenda on nhtokencommission.org. Welcomes participants and facilitates introductions.
Unclear: Jim Kish, Bumpsk Bank Information Only00:10:43.760 - 9:05:59 AM; Introduces himself as representing Bumpsk Bank in the North Country of New Hampshire and Vermont. Discusses working with national and local trade associations, including the New Hampshire Bankers Association, to guide the industry on using stable coins to enable commerce and provide opportunities for community banks in the emerging economy.
Unclear: Katie Taylor, Secretary of State's Office Information Only00:11:30.320 - 9:06:46 AM; Identifies herself as a staff attorney with the New Hampshire Bureau of Securities Regulation in the Secretary of State's office.
Unclear: Andrew (Unnamed) Information Only00:11:30.320 - 9:06:46 AM; Acknowledges being a commission member, though details are brief.
Unclear: Eddie Schwab Information Only00:11:30.320 - 9:06:46 AM; Introduces himself as having been part of the crypto commission a couple years ago, working in the blockchain space for the last five years as a technologist and business person.
Unclear: Chuck Mooney, Uniform Law Commissioner Information Only00:12:21.440 - 9:07:37 AM; Introduces himself as a uniform law commissioner from New Hampshire, involved in domestic and international projects on tokenization and related matters.
Unclear: Chair (Unnamed) Information Only00:12:21.440 - 9:07:37 AM; Confirms quorum with seven members present. Leads approval of September 17th minutes with no discussion; motion by Brandon, seconded by Mike, approved unanimously. Moves to October 15th minutes, notes availability of transcripts and YouTube video for reference, reminds to turn on transcription. Motion to approve by Seth, seconded by Mike, approved unanimously. Announces three presentations, mentions federal activity on Clarity Act, GENIUS Act passage related to stable tokens, and recent Senate draft on market structure bill. Introduces Seth Orinberg, professor at UNH, to present.
Unclear: Chair (Unnamed) Information Only00:09:32.160 - 9:04:48 AM; The chair opens the meeting, calls the commission to order at 10:04 on November 12th, welcomes participants, and refers to the agenda on nhtokencommission.org. He notes the commission's focus on stable tokens, tokenized assets, and blockchain-based trusts.
Unclear: Jim Kish, Bumpsk Bank Information Only00:09:32.160 - 9:04:48 AM; Jim introduces himself as representing Bumpsk Bank in the North Country of New Hampshire and Vermont. He discusses working with trade associations to guide community banks on using stablecoins for commerce and participating in the emerging economy.
Unclear: Katie Taylor, NH Bureau of Securities Regulation Information Only00:10:43.760 - 9:05:59 AM; Katie identifies herself as a staff attorney with the New Hampshire Bureau of Securities Regulation in the Secretary of State's office.
Unclear: Andrew (Unnamed) Information Only00:11:30.320 - 9:06:46 AM; Andrew confirms his participation as a commission member, noting his involvement in the prior crypto commission and five years in the blockchain space as a technologist and business person.
Unclear: Eddie Schwab Information Only00:11:30.320 - 9:06:46 AM; Eddie identifies himself online and confirms his role as a commission member.
Unclear: Chuck Mooney, Uniform Law Commissioner Information Only00:12:21.440 - 9:07:37 AM; Chuck introduces himself as a uniform law commissioner from New Hampshire, involved in domestic and international projects on tokenization and related matters.
Unclear: Chair (Unnamed) Information Only00:13:34.000 - 9:08:50 AM; The chair confirms quorum with seven members present, approves the September 17th and October 15th minutes unanimously, discusses transcription processes, and introduces three presentations, noting federal activity on the Genius Act and Clarity Act.
Unclear: Seth C. Orinberg, Professor at UNH Information Only00:16:14.079 - 9:11:30 AM; Seth introduces his credentials as a professor of law at UNH Franklin Pierce School of Law with a JD from the University of Chicago, specializing in securities regulation, digital assets, and business organizations. He presents on the Genius Act and Clarity Act, explaining definitions of payment stablecoins, federalism implications for states, options for New Hampshire (hosting issuers, state qualification, sovereign issuance), regulatory rules (reserves, transparency, no yield, segregation, redemption, AML), the Clarity Act's taxonomy, certification processes, strategic choices, and implementation phases. He emphasizes opportunities for state involvement and the need for infrastructure. During Q&A, he addresses yield arrangements, tokenized deposits vs. stablecoins, technical sophistication for regulation, timelines, infrastructure needs, commodity staking, network effects, and the $10 billion threshold, highlighting UNH's interoperability lab.
Unclear: Andrew (Unnamed) Information Only00:45:06.880 - 9:40:22 AM; Andrew asks clarifying questions on the Genius Act regarding yield provisions and intermediated paths for rewards.
Unclear: Unnamed Commission Member Information Only00:46:09.920 - 9:41:25 AM; The member asks about distinguishing tokenized deposits from stablecoins and the importance of backing with demand deposits to keep funds in-state, also discussing smart contract complexities and idle coin considerations.
Unclear: Katie Taylor Information Only00:52:21.920 - 9:47:37 AM; Katie questions the timeline for Genius Act implementation, suggesting it could be earlier than 18 months, and comments on New Hampshire's banking infrastructure for regulation, referencing the SAFE Act and money transmitter licensing.
Unclear: Unnamed Commission Member Information Only00:54:09.359 - 9:49:25 AM; The member discusses companies staking commodities for stablecoins to avoid tying up cash, questioning if it fits under the Genius Act.
Unclear: Seth C. Orinberg Information Only00:46:09.920 - 9:41:25 AM; Seth responds to questions on yield, tokenized deposits, backing requirements, smart contract testing, timelines, infrastructure, commodity staking, network effects, $10 billion threshold, Wyoming's approach, and sovereign issuance.
Unclear: Carter Snay, UNH Interoperability Lab Information Only01:01:27.040 - 9:56:43 AM; Carter introduces himself and his work at UNH's interoperability lab, studying cross-blockchain interoperable tokens to address network effect limitations.
Unclear: Ian Uitt, NH Blockchain Council Information Only01:04:38.079 - 9:59:54 AM; Ian presents on blockchain-based asset protection trusts, explaining smart contracts, their application to self-settled asset protection trusts (APTs) for immutability, challenges in traditional APTs (burden of proof, skepticism, backdoors, de facto control), how blockchain solves these via smart contracts and oracles, and policy recommendations for New Hampshire to recognize and protect such trusts statutorily, including jurisdiction, presumptions of impossibility, and definitions. During Q&A, he addresses trustee requirements, legislative needs, oracle definitions, decentralization, and economic benefits via physical hooks for revenue.
Unclear: Unnamed Commission Member Information Only01:33:33.199 - 10:28:49 AM; The member questions trust law requirements for human trustees and potential legislative changes for blockchain-based trusts, mentioning DAOs.
Unclear: Unnamed Commission Member Information Only01:36:31.520 - 10:31:47 AM; The member asks about oracle use, immutability, layer one blockchains vs. private chains, and decentralization requirements.
Unclear: Unnamed Commission Member Information Only01:39:32.480 - 10:34:48 AM; The member inquires how blockchain-based trusts could generate state revenue, referencing charitable trusts and administration hooks.
Unclear: Anastasia (Unnamed), Digital Chamber Information Only01:42:18.560 - 10:37:34 AM; Anastasia introduces the Digital Chamber and its new Digital State Network initiative for state-level education and coordination on digital assets. She discusses stablecoin importance for USD dominance, expansion into payments and DeFi, and parallels to historical state currencies. She emphasizes unified industry approaches and state innovation.
Unclear: Jonathan (Unnamed), Digital Chamber Information Only01:47:30.239 - 10:42:46 AM; Jonathan presents state approaches: New York's BitLicense (comprehensive but burdensome), California's pared-down version, Texas's guidance classifying stablecoins as stored value, Wyoming's crypto-forward laws including SPDIs and the Frontier token for state payments. He covers best practices (reserves, segregation, redemptions, consumer protection, AML/privacy) and federal-state coordination.
Unclear: Unnamed Commission Member Information Only02:03:50.400 - 10:59:06 AM; The member asks about best practices for agentic commerce involving AI agents and ERC-404.
Unclear: Chair (Unnamed) Information Only00:06:04.080 - 9:01:20 AM; The chair facilitates introductions, approvals, presentations, Q&A, scheduling (proposes December 10th, adjusts for availability), discusses future meetings, collaboration among states, comparative advantages, and adjourns at 12:05.
Unclear: Chair (Unnamed) Information Only00:09:32.160 - 9:04:48 AM; The chair calls the commission to order at 10:04, introduces the agenda available at nhto tokencommission.org, welcomes participants, and facilitates introductions and approvals.
Unclear: Jim Kish, Bumpsk Bank Information Only00:10:43.760 - 9:05:59 AM; Jim introduces himself as representing Bumpsk Bank in the North Country of New Hampshire and Vermont. He discusses working with trade associations to guide community banks on using stable coins for commerce and participating in the emerging economy.
Unclear: Katie Taylor, Secretary of State's Office Information Only00:11:30.320 - 9:06:46 AM; Katie identifies herself as a staff attorney with the New Hampshire Bureau of Securities Regulation in the Secretary of State's office.
Unclear: Andrew (Unnamed) Information Only00:11:30.320 - 9:06:46 AM; Andrew confirms his participation as a commission member, mentions involvement in a previous crypto commission, and shares experience in the blockchain space as a technologist and business person for the last five years.
Unclear: Chuck Mooney Information Only00:12:21.440 - 9:07:37 AM; Chuck introduces himself as a uniform law commissioner from New Hampshire, involved in domestic and international projects on tokenization and related matters.
Unclear: Brandon (Unnamed) Information Only00:13:34.000 - 9:08:50 AM; Brandon makes a motion to approve the September 17th minutes.
Unclear: Mike (Unnamed) Information Only00:13:34.000 - 9:08:50 AM; Mike seconds the motion to approve the September 17th minutes and later seconds the motion for the October 15th minutes.
Unclear: Seth (Unnamed) Information Only00:14:38.160 - 9:09:54 AM; Seth moves to approve the October 15th minutes.
Unclear: Seth C. Orinberg, Professor at UNH Information Only00:16:14.079 - 9:11:30 AM; Seth introduces himself as a professor of law at the University of New Hampshire Franklin Pierce School of Law, with a JD from the University of Chicago, specializing in securities regulation, digital asset markets, and business organizations. He presents on federal statutes like the Genius Act and Clarity Act, defining payment stablecoins, discussing federalism implications for states, options for New Hampshire including hosting issuers, state certification, or sovereign issuance, credential and consumer protection rules, and strategic choices. He covers reserve requirements, transparency, no-yield rules, segregation, redemption, and anti-money laundering. He addresses the Clarity Act's taxonomy for digital assets and certification processes under Genius. He outlines phases for state implementation: assessment, coordination, and execution. Q&A follows on yield arrangements, tokenized deposits vs. stablecoins, infrastructure needs, and the $10 billion threshold.
Unclear: Andy Schwab Information Only00:45:06.880 - 9:40:22 AM; Andy thanks Seth for the presentation and asks a clarifying question about yield provisions in the Genius Act, noting potential indirect arrangements through intermediaries.
Unclear: Unnamed Speaker (Possibly Jim) Information Only00:46:09.920 - 9:41:25 AM; The speaker asks Seth to distinguish tokenized deposits from stablecoins in his research.
Unclear: Jim (Unnamed) Information Only00:49:19.280 - 9:44:35 AM; Jim explains tokenized deposits as backed by demand deposit accounts with 10% reserve requirements, emphasizing retention of dollars in the state economy. He discusses smart contracts' complexity, potential delays in minting/burning, and the need for financial consideration for idle coins.
Unclear: Unnamed Commission Member Information Only00:52:21.920 - 9:47:37 AM; The member asks about earlier implementation than January 2027 under the Genius Act and comments on New Hampshire's banking infrastructure for stablecoin regulation, referencing the SAFE Act and money transmitter licensing.
Unclear: Unnamed Speaker Information Only00:54:09.359 - 9:49:25 AM; The speaker discusses companies staking commodities like inventory for stablecoins to avoid tying up cash.
Unclear: Unnamed Commission Member Information Only00:56:50.480 - 9:52:06 AM; The member questions the $10 billion threshold's impact on network effects, comparing it to dual banking systems.
Unclear: Carter Snay, Interoperability Lab Information Only01:01:27.040 - 9:56:43 AM; Carter introduces himself from the University of New Hampshire Interoperability Lab, discussing studies on cross-blockchain interoperable tokens to mitigate network effect limitations.
Unclear: Ian Uitt, New Hampshire Blockchain Council Information Only01:04:38.079 - 9:59:54 AM; Ian presents on blockchain-based asset protection trusts, co-authored with Brian Quirk. He explains smart contracts, their immutability, and application to self-settled asset protection trusts (APTs) to reduce litigation risks around immutability. He discusses traditional APT challenges like proving impossibility, judicial skepticism, backdoors, and self-created impossibility. He proposes blockchain solutions using smart contracts and oracles to enhance immutability and suggests statutory amendments for New Hampshire to recognize and attract such trusts, including jurisdiction, protections, and presumptions of impossibility. Q&A covers trustee requirements, decentralization, oracles, and economic benefits like physical hooks for revenue.
Unclear: Anastasia (Unnamed), Digital Chamber Information Only01:42:18.560 - 10:37:34 AM; Anastasia introduces the Digital Chamber and its Digital State Network initiative for state-level education and coordination on digital assets. She discusses stablecoin importance for US dollar dominance, circulation stats, and expansion into payments and remittances. She emphasizes state innovation with federal alignment.
Unclear: Jonathan (Unnamed), Digital Chamber Information Only01:47:30.239 - 10:42:46 AM; Jonathan presents state regulatory approaches: New York's BitLicense, California's paired-down version, Texas's guidance on stablecoins as stored value, and Wyoming's crypto-forward framework including SPDIs and the Frontier stable token. He covers best practices: reserve backing, segregation, redemption rights, consumer protection, and AML. He discusses federal-state coordination and economic opportunities like attracting fintech.
Unclear: Bankers Association Representative Information Only00:10:43.760 - 9:05:59 AM; The speaker from the Bankers Association discusses guiding the industry to enable and educate community banks on using stable coins for commerce and participation in the emerging economy.
Unclear: Katie Taylor, Staff Attorney, NH Bureau of Securities Regulation Information Only00:11:30.320 - 9:06:46 AM; Katie Taylor identifies herself as a staff attorney with the New Hampshire Bureau of Securities Regulation in the Secretary of State's office.
Unclear: Andrew (Commission Member) Information Only00:11:30.320 - 9:06:46 AM; Andrew introduces himself as having been part of the crypto commission a couple of years ago, working in the blockchain space for five years as a technologist and business person.
Unclear: Chuck Mooney, Uniform Law Commissioner Information Only00:12:21.440 - 9:07:37 AM; Chuck Mooney introduces himself as a uniform law commissioner from New Hampshire, involved in domestic and international projects on tokenization and related matters.
Unclear: Chair (Keith Ammon) Information Only00:12:21.440 - 9:07:37 AM; The chair facilitates the meeting, confirms quorum, approves minutes from September 17th and October 15th, discusses presentations, and introduces speakers. He mentions federal activity on the Clarity Act and Genius Act, and notes the need for a volunteer clerk.
Unclear: Seth C. Orinberg, Professor of Law, UNH Information Only00:16:14.079 - 9:11:30 AM; Professor Orinberg presents on the Genius Act and Clarity Act, explaining definitions of payment stablecoins, federalism implications for states, options for New Hampshire (hosting issuers, state certification, sovereign issuance), credential and consumer protection rules (reserves, transparency, no yield, segregation, redemption, AML), the Clarity Act's taxonomy (digital asset, commodity, security, ancillary), certification process under Genius, strategic choices, open questions, and implementation phases. He emphasizes clarity as stability in digital asset markets. During Q&A, he clarifies yield issues, distinguishes tokenized deposits from stablecoins, discusses technical sophistication needed for regulation, and addresses the $10 billion threshold and network effects.
Unclear: Andy Schwab (Commission Member) Information Only00:45:06.880 - 9:40:22 AM; Andy Schwab asks clarifying questions on yield provisions in the Genius Act and distinctions between tokenized deposits and stablecoins.
Unclear: Unnamed Commission Member (possibly Jim) Information Only00:46:09.920 - 9:41:25 AM; The member asks about distinguishing tokenized deposits from stablecoins, explains tokenized deposits backed by demand deposit accounts with 10% reserves, discusses smart contracts' complexity and idle coin considerations, and emphasizes financial implications.
Unclear: Unnamed Commission Member Information Only00:52:21.920 - 9:47:37 AM; The member questions the timeline for Genius Act implementation, suggesting it could be earlier than January 2027, and comments on New Hampshire's banking infrastructure for stablecoin regulation, referencing the SAFE Act and money transmitters.
Unclear: Unnamed Commission Member Information Only00:54:09.359 - 9:49:25 AM; The member discusses companies staking commodities for stablecoins instead of cash, questioning if it fits under Genius Act definitions.
Unclear: Unnamed Commission Member Information Only00:56:50.480 - 9:52:06 AM; The member questions the $10 billion threshold's arbitrariness, network effects, and precedents in dual banking systems.
Unclear: Carter Snay, Interoperability Lab Information Only01:01:27.040 - 9:56:43 AM; Carter Snay introduces himself from the UNH Interoperability Lab, discussing studies on cross-blockchain interoperable tokens to address network effect limitations.
Unclear: Ian Uitt, Volunteer Board Member, NH Blockchain Council Information Only01:04:38.079 - 9:59:54 AM; Ian Uitt presents on blockchain-based asset protection trusts (APTs), explaining smart contracts, immutability benefits for self-settled APTs, challenges in traditional APTs (burden of proof, skepticism, backdoors, de facto control), how blockchain solves these via smart contracts and oracles, and policy recommendations for New Hampshire (statutory recognition, jurisdiction, presumption of impossibility). During Q&A, he addresses trustee requirements, legislative changes to RSA 564B, oracle definitions, decentralization needs, and economic benefits via physical hooks for administration. He notes New Hampshire's trust focus and potential revenue from attracting business.
Unclear: Anastasia (State Policy Director, Digital Chamber) Information Only01:42:18.560 - 10:37:34 AM; Anastasia introduces the Digital Chamber and Digital State Network, discusses stablecoin importance (170B circulation, USD dominance, applications in payments/remittances/DeFi), federal-state coordination, economic opportunities, and best practices for state approaches (listening to experts, regulatory sandboxes, model rules, roadmaps). She emphasizes innovation with federal alignment and offers industry connections.
Unclear: Jonathan (Digital Chamber) Information Only01:47:30.239 - 10:42:46 AM; Jonathan presents state regulatory approaches: New York's BitLicense (comprehensive but hurdles for stablecoins), California's paired-down version, Texas's guidance classifying stablecoins as stored value, Wyoming's crypto-forward laws (WYOMING JUNA, SPDI, Frontier token for state payments). He covers best practices (reserves, segregation, redemptions, consumer protection, AML/privacy) and federal-state coordination.
Unclear: Unnamed Commission Member Information Only02:03:50.400 - 10:59:06 AM; The member asks about best practices for agentic commerce (AI agents transacting) and its relation to digital assets.
Unclear: Staff Attorney, NH Bureau of Securities Regulation Information Only00:11:30.320 - 9:06:46 AM; The speaker introduced themselves as a staff attorney with the New Hampshire Bureau of Securities Regulation, providing brief context on their role in the discussion.
Unclear: Eddie Schwab, Commission Member Information Only00:11:30.320 - 9:06:46 AM; Eddie Schwab, a commission member with experience in the crypto commission a couple years ago, shared their background of five years in the blockchain space as a technologist and business person.
Unclear: Chuck Mooney, Uniform Law Commissioner Information Only00:12:21.440 - 9:07:37 AM; Chuck Mooney introduced himself as a uniform law commissioner from New Hampshire, involved in domestic and international projects on tokenization and related matters.
Unclear: Chair (Keith Ammon) Information Only00:12:21.440 - 9:07:37 AM; The chair facilitated the approval of the September 17th and October 15th meeting minutes, noting the organizational nature of the first and the availability of transcripts for the second. They confirmed quorums, motions, and unanimous approvals, and announced three presentations on federal activity regarding the Clarity Act and Genius Act.
Unclear: Seth C. Orinberg, Professor of Law, UNH Information Only00:16:14.079 - 9:11:30 AM; Professor Orinberg provided a detailed presentation on the federal Genius Act and Clarity Act, defining payment stablecoins as blockchain-based digital assets used primarily for payments, redeemable for a fixed national currency value, and maintaining stable value. He outlined three state positions under federalism: hosting federally qualified issuers, becoming a state-certified regulator for issuers up to $10 billion, or issuing state-backed tokens as a sovereign. He discussed reserve requirements, transparency, no-yield rules, segregation, redemption rights, and anti-money laundering obligations. He explained the Clarity Act's taxonomy of digital assets (commodity, security, ancillary) and self-certification process, emphasizing state opportunities in innovation while aligning with federal standards. He addressed strategic choices, open questions on substantial similarity, dual supervision, and state collaboration, and outlined phases for state implementation: assessment, coordination, and execution.
Unclear: Andrew (Andy Schwab), Commission Member Information Only00:45:06.880 - 9:40:22 AM; Andrew asked a clarifying question on the Genius Act's yield prohibitions, noting potential indirect arrangements through intermediaries like banks for rewards.
Unclear: Unnamed Commission Member Information Only00:46:09.920 - 9:41:25 AM; The member inquired about distinguishing tokenized deposits from stablecoins in research, emphasizing functional regulation over naming.
Unclear: Seth C. Orinberg (response) Information Only00:46:09.920 - 9:41:25 AM; In response, Professor Orinberg emphasized regulating assets by function, noting payment stable tokens under Genius are narrowly defined for payments with stable value, while others lack exemptions and fall under broader categories requiring further federal action.
Unclear: Jim (Unnamed Commission Member) Information Only00:49:19.280 - 9:44:35 AM; Jim clarified tokenized deposits as backed by demand deposit accounts at 10% reserve, highlighting risks of losing dollars to out-of-state assets and the need to keep funds local. He discussed smart contracts' complexity, potential delays in minting/burning, and the need for financial consideration for idle coins.
Unclear: Seth C. Orinberg (follow-up) Information Only00:51:28.559 - 9:46:44 AM; Professor Orinberg agreed on the need for technical sophistication in qualifiers to pressure-test instruments beyond white papers, noting innovation's diversity challenges compliance.
Unclear: Unnamed Commission Member Information Only00:52:21.920 - 9:47:37 AM; The member questioned if the Genius Act effective date could be earlier than 18 months if rules are completed sooner, and commented on New Hampshire's banking infrastructure being close to state certification needs, citing the SAFE Act and money transmitter licensing as similar to stablecoin payment rails.
Unclear: Seth C. Orinberg (response) Information Only00:52:21.920 - 9:47:37 AM; Orinberg confirmed the 18-month timeline as an outside limit but unlikely to be substantially earlier due to complexity and post-Loper Bright processes, while acknowledging NH's potential strengths in infrastructure.
Unclear: Unnamed Commission Member Information Only00:54:09.359 - 9:49:25 AM; The member described companies staking commodities like inventory for stablecoin issuance to avoid tying up cash, questioning if it fits Genius Act definitions.
Unclear: Seth C. Orinberg (response) Information Only00:55:04.559 - 9:50:20 AM; Orinberg noted backing must be national currency redeemable, separate from issuance timing, and raised concerns on rehypothecation and systemic risks like 2008 contagion.
Unclear: Unnamed Commission Member Information Only00:56:50.480 - 9:52:06 AM; The member questioned the $10 billion threshold's arbitrariness, its impact on network effects for state tokens, and precedents in dual banking where large entities go federal.
Unclear: Seth C. Orinberg (response) Information Only00:56:50.480 - 9:52:06 AM; Orinberg discussed network effects and scale benefits but suggested niche tokens; noted the threshold's arbitrariness causing market discontinuities like in Sarbanes-Oxley; highlighted UNH's interoperability lab as a way to counter network effects.
Unclear: Carter Snay, UNH Interoperability Lab Information Only01:01:27.040 - 9:56:43 AM; Carter introduced himself and his work at UNH's interoperability lab, studying cross-blockchain interoperable tokens to avoid network effect limitations.
Unclear: Unnamed Commission Member Information Only01:01:27.040 - 9:56:43 AM; The member noted practical shifts to national chartering for large banks despite no hard ceiling, similar to potential stablecoin dynamics.
Unclear: Unnamed Commission Member Information Only01:02:22.559 - 9:57:38 AM; The member inquired about Wyoming's sovereign stable token potentially avoiding the $10 billion threshold under Genius Act.
Unclear: Seth C. Orinberg (response) Information Only01:02:22.559 - 9:57:38 AM; Orinberg explained Wyoming's position as sovereign issuance not subject to Genius, not creating currency but a payment mechanism with over 100% US dollar backing; North Dakota uses owned banks similarly, claiming sovereign exemption.
Unclear: Ian Uitt, Volunteer Board Member, NH Blockchain Council Information Only01:04:38.079 - 9:59:54 AM; Ian presented on blockchain-based asset protection trusts (APTs), explaining smart contracts' immutability for self-settled APTs. He detailed traditional APT challenges like proving impossibility in civil contempt, judicial skepticism, backdoors, and sham findings, using cases like a 2014 Florida example. He proposed blockchain APTs replace trustees with smart contracts/oracles for easier immutability proof, reducing litigation risks. He suggested NH statutory amendments to recognize blockchain APTs, presume impossibility defenses, and require physical hooks for jurisdiction to attract business, similar to Cook Islands' model.
Unclear: Unnamed Commission Member Information Only01:33:33.199 - 10:28:49 AM; The member questioned if NH trust law requires a person/entity trustee, suggesting legislative changes to RSA 564B for non-person blockchain trustees, mentioning DAOs.
Unclear: Ian Uitt (response) Information Only01:34:28.239 - 10:29:44 AM; Uitt agreed amendments would help but noted core impossibility defense from case law suffices; statutory recognition builds coherence without full trust code overhaul.
Unclear: Unnamed Commission Member Information Only01:36:31.520 - 10:31:47 AM; The member asked about oracle requirements, preferring layer 1 like Ethereum for credibility over private chains.
Unclear: Ian Uitt (response) Information Only01:37:30.239 - 10:32:46 AM; Uitt specified decentralized chains for immutability; statutory decentralization definition for smart contracts excludes centralizable private chains.
Unclear: Chair (Keith Ammon) Information Only01:38:30.400 - 10:33:46 AM; The chair sought clarification on oracle definition and immutability in blockchain APTs, and how it benefits NH economically.
Unclear: Ian Uitt (response) Information Only01:38:30.400 - 10:33:46 AM; Uitt defined oracles as inputs on world state (e.g., date for distributions), requiring decentralization; for NH benefits, require creation/administration in-state for jurisdiction, generating revenue like Cook Islands via physical hooks, plus blockchain dispute docket.
Unclear: Anastasia (State Policy Director, Digital Chamber) Information Only01:42:18.560 - 10:37:34 AM; Anastasia introduced the Digital Chamber's Digital State Network for state education on digital assets, emphasizing unified industry approach. She highlighted stablecoins' $170B circulation (98% USD-linked) for dollar dominance, expanding to payments/remittances/DeFi, with Fortune 500 adoption.
Unclear: Jonathan (Digital Chamber) Information Only01:47:30.239 - 10:42:46 AM; Jonathan presented state approaches: NY's comprehensive BitLicense (pros: sophistication; cons: per-blockchain approvals); CA's pared-down version; TX's guidance classifying stablecoins as stored value, attracting Coinbase; WY's crypto-forward SPDI for collateralized banking and sovereign Frontier token for efficient state payments, claiming Genius exemption. He outlined best practices: 1:1 reserves, segregation, redemption rights, consumer/AML protections without overreach.
Unclear: Anastasia (continued) Information Only01:58:46.320 - 10:54:02 AM; Anastasia discussed federal-state coordination for shared oversight, state-to-state collaboration, innovation with alignment, economic opportunities as fintech hub, and approaches like hearings, sandboxes, model rules, university partnerships, and publishing a digital finance roadmap. Offered Digital Chamber as resource for connections.
Unclear: Unnamed Commission Member Information Only02:03:50.400 - 10:59:06 AM; The member asked about best practices for agentic commerce (AI agents transacting) and regulatory adaptation.
Unclear: Jonathan (response) Information Only02:04:38.400 - 10:59:54 AM; Jonathan noted member work on ERC-404 for AI agent commerce, focusing on authorization, protections, and ensuring regulation keeps pace with smart contracts/AI.
Unclear: Chair (Keith Ammon) Information Only02:05:40.880 - 11:00:56 AM; The chair noted agentic commerce's relevance beyond commission scope but worth considering; appreciated roadmap idea for final report and offered Digital Chamber help.
Unclear: Seth C. Oringberg, Professor of Law at University of New Hampshire Franklin Pierce School of Law Information Only00:16:14.079 - 9:11:30 AM; Professor Oringberg introduced himself and his credentials in securities regulation, digital asset markets, and business organizations. He discussed the federal Genius Act, which governs payment stablecoins as a monetary and banking law, defining them as blockchain-based digital assets used primarily for payments, redeemable for a fixed monetary value, and maintaining stable value. He explained the Clarity Act, pending in the Senate, which establishes a taxonomy for digital assets (digital asset, digital commodity, digital security, ancillary asset) and reshapes regulation by separating payments from investments. He outlined three state options under federalism: hosting federally qualified issuers, becoming a state-qualified regulator for issuers up to $10 billion (requiring infrastructure and Treasury certification for substantial similarity), or issuing a state-backed stable token as a sovereign (a gray area, citing Wyoming and North Dakota examples). He detailed credential and consumer protection rules including reserve requirements (100% high-quality liquid assets), transparency (monthly reports), no yield, segregation of reserves, redemption rights, and anti-money laundering compliance. He covered the certification process for states, effective date (18 months post-enactment, around January 2027), strategic choices, open questions (e.g., substantial similarity interpretation, dual supervision), and implementation phases (assessment, coordination, execution). He emphasized clarity as stability and offered to answer questions.
Unclear: Andy Schwab Information Only00:45:06.880 - 9:40:22 AM; Andy Schwab thanked Professor Oringberg for the overview and asked a clarifying question about the Genius Act's yield prohibition, noting that while direct yield to holders is banned, indirect arrangements through banks or intermediaries might allow rewards to pass through. Oringberg responded that the statute does not definitively address indirect yields or rewards, which may be clarified in rulemaking.
Unclear: Unnamed Speaker (possibly Jim) Information Only00:46:09.920 - 9:41:25 AM; The speaker appreciated the presentation and asked about distinguishing tokenized deposits from stablecoins. Oringberg explained that regulation should focus on function rather than name; payment stable tokens under Genius are narrowly defined for payments with stable value (e.g., within 10 basis points), backed by national currency, and exempt from certain treatments, while other stable tokens do not qualify for special status. The speaker then clarified tokenized deposits as demand deposit accounts at financial institutions with 10% reserve requirements, emphasizing the importance of keeping dollars in-state rather than in potentially offshore assets. He discussed smart contracts' variability (simple to complex), potential delays in minting/burning, value fluctuations based on purchase price, and the need for financial consideration for idle coins, highlighting the sophistication of these instruments.
Unclear: Unnamed Speaker Information Only00:52:21.920 - 9:47:37 AM; The speaker asked if rules could take effect before the 18-month Genius Act deadline if rulemaking is completed early. Oringberg agreed it's possible but unlikely due to technical complexity and post-Loper Bright process requirements, though regulators are moving quickly.
Unclear: Unnamed Speaker (Banking Department Representative) Information Only00:53:18.000 - 9:48:34 AM; The speaker clarified that New Hampshire's banking infrastructure is close to ready for state qualification under the $10 billion cap, having certified under the SAFE Act and licensing/examining money transmitters, viewing stablecoins as similar to payment rails. They are working with CSBS on a model law. They noted companies staking commodities (e.g., inventory) for stablecoins instead of cash to avoid tying up capital, questioning if this fits Genius Act definitions. Oringberg responded that backing must be national currency redeemable, separate from issuance timing, and raised concerns about rehypothecation and systemic risks like 2008 contagion.
Unclear: Unnamed Speaker Information Only00:56:50.480 - 9:52:06 AM; The speaker questioned the $10 billion threshold's arbitrariness, citing network effects (e.g., Tether's dominance like Facebook) and potential limits on state token growth before federal oversight. They asked for precedents in dual banking where size forces federal chartering. Oringberg discussed network effects and scale benefits but suggested niche tokens for specific uses; the threshold is arbitrary, creating market discontinuities like Sarbanes-Oxley, potentially causing irregularities, but $10 billion could incubate startups. He plugged UNH's interoperability lab in Durham for cross-token compatibility to counter network effects. Carter Snay from the lab introduced himself, noting their work on cross-blockchain interoperable tokens to avoid network limitations.
Unclear: Unnamed Speaker Information Only01:01:27.040 - 9:56:43 AM; The speaker noted practical tendencies in dual banking where larger entities go national despite no hard ceiling, similar to stablecoins.
Unclear: Unnamed Speaker Information Only01:02:22.559 - 9:57:38 AM; The speaker asked about Wyoming's sovereign stable token and the $10 billion threshold applicability. Oringberg explained Wyoming claims exemption as a sovereign not issuing money (backed >100% in USD with immediate redemption), not seeking Treasury certification; North Dakota uses owned banks similarly, positioning as sovereigns outside Genius.
Unclear: Ian Uitt, Volunteer Board Member of New Hampshire Blockchain Council Information Only01:04:38.079 - 9:59:54 AM; Ian Uitt presented on his law review article co-authored with Brian Quirk on blockchain-based asset protection trusts (APTs). He explained smart contracts as immutable, self-executing blockchain programs for trustless execution, overlapping with but distinct from legal contracts. He highlighted APTs' demand in trusts litigation for immutability to protect assets via civil contempt's impossibility defense. Using a 2014 Florida case example, he illustrated how a well-structured Cook Islands APT prevented contempt by proving irrevocability. He noted APTs originated from due process and contempt principles, not statutes, but states like New Hampshire (RSA 564B) statutorily recognize them for creditor protection. Challenges include proving impossibility (settlor's burden), judicial skepticism, accidental backdoors in trust terms, unfalsifiable de facto backdoors, and self-created impossibility (disfavored). He proposed blockchain APTs using smart contracts and oracles to enhance immutability, simplifying proof (just explain blockchain), eliminating human discretion risks. For New Hampshire, he suggested statutes affirming jurisdiction over blockchain APTs created/administered in-state, treating qualifying smart contracts as irrevocable spendthrift trusts, and presuming impossibility defense for smart contract modifications, to attract business like Cook Islands (third of GDP from APTs) without major trust code overhauls.
Unclear: Unnamed Speaker (possibly Representative) Information Only01:33:33.199 - 10:28:49 AM; The speaker noted draft legislation on the commission website and asked about New Hampshire trust law requiring a person/entity trustee, suggesting legislative changes to RSA 564B for non-person (blockchain) trustees, mentioning DAOs. Uitt agreed it would help but the proposed statutory language on impossibility/immutability could suffice under common law, as traditional APTs arose similarly; further amendments could build coherence.
Unclear: Unnamed Speaker Information Only01:36:31.520 - 10:31:47 AM; The speaker asked about oracle use (layer 1 like Ethereum for credibility vs. private chains) and immutability. Uitt specified decentralized chains for impossibility proof, suggesting statutory decentralization requirements in smart contract definitions; oracles provide real-world inputs (e.g., date for distributions), needing decentralization to avoid central control.
Unclear: Chair Keith Ammon Information Only01:39:32.480 - 10:34:48 AM; The chair asked how blockchain APTs benefit New Hampshire economically (e.g., revenue from trusts under AG or banking oversight). Uitt explained requiring creation/administration in-state creates physical hooks (people/firms), generating revenue like Cook Islands' tens of millions annually; adapt legal system (e.g., blockchain dispute docket) to handle disputes, signaling specialization.
Unclear: Anastasia (State Policy Director, Digital Chamber) and Jonathan (Colleague) Information Only01:42:18.560 - 10:37:34 AM; Anastasia introduced the Digital Chamber's 11-year federal advocacy and new Digital State Network for state education/resources, connecting policymakers with industry for unified approaches. She highlighted stablecoins' $170B circulation (98% USD-linked), role in dollar dominance, expansion to payments/remittances/DeFi, and Fortune 500 adoption (Visa, Stripe, banks). Jonathan covered state approaches: New York's 2015 BitLicense (comprehensive but hurdles like per-blockchain approvals); California's pared-down version; Texas's guidance classifying stablecoins as stored value without separate law, attracting Coinbase; Wyoming's crypto-forward SPDI (fully collateralized, e.g., Custodia Bank) and sovereign Frontier token for efficient state payments (outside Genius as sovereign issuance). Best practices: 1:1 liquid reserves (deposits/treasuries), segregation/bankruptcy protections, clear/timely redemptions, consumer/AML protections without overreach on privacy. Anastasia discussed federal-state coordination (shared oversight, state-to-state learning), avoiding preemption, economic opportunities (fintech hub, jobs), and approaches (hearings, sandboxes, model rules, university partnerships, roadmap). They offered connections to members/experts/states.
Unclear: Unnamed Speaker Information Only02:03:50.400 - 10:59:06 AM; The speaker praised the presentation and asked about best practices for agentic commerce (AI agents transacting). Jonathan noted ERC-404 initiative for AI-enabled commerce, focusing on authorization/protections; Digital Chamber works with members to ensure regulation keeps pace with AI/smart contracts for security/consumer protection.