Can Bitcoin Become Legal Tender in America? With Aaron Daniel - WBD531

Aaron Daniel is an Appellate attorney and author of The Bitcoin
Brief, a newsletter analysing Bitcoin’s effect on law and
society. In this interview, we discuss the legal arguments around
making Bitcoin US legal tender, and whether it would actually
confer any meaningful benefits.


- - - -


It is assumed that for Bitcoin to become widely adopted within
the US, it would need to be made legal tender. Without such legal
clarity, Bitcoin may continue to be viewed by the general
population as an unofficial and risky form of money, liable to be
prohibited by the state. Therefore, gaining legal tender status
would be a seismic positive shift in Bitcoins development.


Attempts to move the country in this direction are often
applauded by Bitcoiners. Whether it is US states commencing
processes to establish protections for Bitcoin’s use (including
efforts in Arizona to declare Bitcoin as legal tender), to
activists and politicians advocating for the Federal government
to consider making Bitcoin legal tender. The assumption is these
are worthy actions.


But, what is legal tender? What utility and protections does such
status provide money? What legal framework(s) would be used to
confer legal tender status? And, is it necessarily so that such a
classification would benefit Bitcoin and it’s users?


The consideration of any nascent technology in legal terms is
always fraught with uncertainty and interpretation. The
constitution and bill of rights are a firm basis for the
development of the world's oldest and most enduring democracy.
But, the consideration of modern developments through the prism
of the 18th-century founders results in legal arguments that need
testing.


Whist such testing is worthwhile, seeking to make a private
digital currency legal tender in the US will be a huge endeavour.
And, rushing to develop the legal case misses the more essential
policy question: is it beneficial to Bitcoin and its users to
mandate its legal standing? Fundamentally, should freedom money
remain free: free from state interference, but also free for all
people to accept or reject?