A few notes about Aaron: while I agree with his perspective that Money Transmission should be a Federal issue, not a state issue,
A) He's not a lawyer;
B) He's (or at least Think Computer) is cheerfully suing a bunch of Bitcoin and Silicon Valley companies (including one I founded) over these laws, costing many startups litigation defense fees.
I do not consider him to be anything like a balanced commentator on these issues, and I also do not believe his approach to be one that is, on balance, helping California technology companies who wish to deal with payments.
I do not consider him to be anything like a balanced commentator on these issues, and I also do not believe his approach to be one that is, on balance, helping California technology companies who wish to deal with payments.
Why not argue against the argument rather than the man? Or at least if we're arguing against men, follow up with "a few notes about Peter" so I can get a decent comparison of the men.
Comments
A few notes about Aaron: while I agree with his perspective that Money Transmission should be a Federal issue, not a state issue,
A) He's not a lawyer;
B) He's (or at least Think Computer) is cheerfully suing a bunch of Bitcoin and Silicon Valley companies (including one I founded) over these laws, costing many startups litigation defense fees.
I do not consider him to be anything like a balanced commentator on these issues, and I also do not believe his approach to be one that is, on balance, helping California technology companies who wish to deal with payments.
Why not argue against the argument rather than the man? Or at least if we're arguing against men, follow up with "a few notes about Peter" so I can get a decent comparison of the men.