Different quibble on this distinction. In Texas, you need an MSB/MT license (since 2019, at least) if:
1) If you're running an ATMs with both sides of the order book w/o maintaining separate accounts for each side, or
2) If you run an exchange.
Notably excepting the New York bitlicense (generally regarded by the crypto industry as onerous and unwieldy and in some cases, not even enforceable or tenable)
New York, on the other hand, has regulatory capture from the existing trad finance industry.
Regardless, the IRS classifies it as "digital currency," which is ill-defined as they don't make much regard in current guidance as to whether it's decentralized or not.
My lack of legalese fluency is definitely showing here, but their guidance seems to lack clarity on the practice of selling BTC: "Whether a person is a money transmitter under FinCEN’s regulations is a matter
of facts and circumstances."
Time for another mini update to this thread.
I've spoken to a variety of lawyers in a variety of contexts to get a better understanding why different agencies have such wildly varied opinions on the status of Bitcoin.
Strictly looking at the original situation: Texas and Federal compliance, we're now looking at Texas Banking Commission guidance in the context of guidance from FinCEN that came one month later (Texas: 4-19, FinCEN: 5-19).
(Incidentally, I'll readily admit that I somehow completely missed the the 5-19 federal guidance when it came out, only recently have been made aware of it, but here's a direct link).
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!