Kristi Noem vetoes bill that would define money without including crypto

I just came across this news on Cointelegraph. Noem mentioned, "By specifically leaving out cryptocurrencies from the money definition, it would get trickier to use crypto," she said. "HB 1993 paves the way for the federal government to potentially adopt a CBDC more easily, which might end up being the only digital currency we can use. [...] It wouldn’t be wise to set rules for something that isn’t even there yet." I’m kinda confused about the whole situation, so I copied her comments. Is it a major issue that we might only be able to deal with digital CBDCs? Can someone break this down for me?

I have read about the law that the federal government wants to implement regarding CBDC, if I understand and think again about the bill for digital currency CBDC, it was planned several years ago, but the federal government has never succeeded in adopting CBDC internationally as a digital currency that is legally used by the world, they only talk and design changes to laws. nothing more, they are good at making laws, but not as smart as Satoshi Nakamoto. What I quote below is the main goal of the federal government, note: it is a plan/goal, but it has not been implemented. Most likely the above plan will not work. Logic reasons. CBDC is supervised and controlled by the federal government, while crypto is not supervised and controlled by the government, you know today's society is smart and great, they don't want to be monitored and controlled, people want to be free to invest, trade etc., so crypto remains, the government's bill plan will fail. Noem: already said: he is the mastermind behind it all. The above quote is only one real goal for the federal government, 'total control' wants to fool the people and the government wants to win alone. At the end of the story, this is what will happen. All in vain, it never works.

You have it backwards. Kristi Noem, the governor of South Dakota, blocked a law that would create a definition of money that excludes cryptocurrencies.

Yes, South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem vetoed a bill on March 11, 2023 that would have amended the state's Uniform Commercial Code to exclude cryptocurrencies and other digital assets from the definition of money. In her veto letter, Noem said that the bill would "open the door to the risk that the federal government could easily adopt a Central Bank Digital Currency, which then may become the only viable digital currency." She also argued that the bill would make it more difficult for businesses to use cryptocurrencies. Noem's veto was praised by some cryptocurrency advocates, who argued that it would protect the state's cryptocurrency industry from government overreach. However, others criticized the veto, arguing that it would stifle innovation in the cryptocurrency industry. The bill's sponsor, Representative Aaron Matson, said that he was disappointed by Noem's veto, but that he would continue to work to bring clarity to the state's laws on cryptocurrencies. The veto of House Bill 1193 is the latest example of the growing debate over the role of cryptocurrencies in the US financial system. The Federal Reserve has said that it is considering issuing its own central bank digital currency, and some lawmakers have called for stricter regulations on cryptocurrencies. However, other lawmakers have argued that cryptocurrencies should be allowed to operate freely in the market. The debate over cryptocurrencies is likely to continue in the coming years. As cryptocurrencies become more popular, it is likely that the US government will take steps to regulate them. However, it is also possible that cryptocurrencies will become so widely used that they will be difficult for the government to regulate.

It was already strange to me when I saw the headline, and I started reading to see if she had gone crazy, but reading it carefully, contrary to how the OP has done, one clearly sees that she is trying to protect the people against the CBDS. With this one, there are already several cases in which we clearly see who wants to offer their citizens free Bitcoin access and who wants to impose CBDCs on top of it.

Thank you, boss. People and even me sometimes feel that vetoing and assenting mean the same thing. They think vetoing a bill means approving it but it really means disapproving it. The brave Governor actually refused to accept this bill programmed to frustrate decentralization and reduce privacy. The bill wants to make US CBDC the only crytocurrency in the state. What is wrong with South Dakota House? They are playing the script of the federal government which contains a plot to force people to turn to the dollar-backed CBDC. Kristi Noem has joined some governors that have recently stood their ground to protect Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. I want to commend the efforts of Conservative advocates that supported the governor in the process of vetoing the legislation. This is good news for the crypto space because this policy would have affected the use of cryptocurrencies in the State of South Dakota.

Since the division started between supporters and opponents of cryptocurrencies in the US House of Representatives, this means that we are on the right path. If there are those who defend, even if shyly, cryptocurrencies, then this is a positive thing. Throughout history, any new invention has been going through almost the same stages, at first it is rejected by the majority and almost everyone rejects it by a few people, then acceptance begins to increase and rejection declines, until it is finally accepted and becomes the main one. I think bitcoin is going through these stages now.