1、 California Blockchain Working Group Members Chair of the Blockchain Working Group Camille Crittenden, CITRIS and the Banatao Institute, University of California Three appointees from the technology industry Brian Behlendorf, Linux Foundation Audrey Chaing, Blockchaing David Tennenhouse, VMware Thre
2、e appointees from the non-technology-related industry Ben Bartlett, Berkeley City Councilmember Meredith Lee, West Big Data Innovation Hub Anne Neville-Bonilla, California State Library Three appointees with a background in law chosen in consultation with the Judicial Council Jason Albert, Workday L
3、iz Chien, Ripple Labs Inc. Michele Neitz, Golden Gate University School of Law Two appointees from privacy organizations Arshad Noor, StrongKey Sheila Warren, World Economic Forum Two appointees from consumer organizations* Radhika Iyengar-Emens, DoubleNova Group The State Chief Information Officer
4、Amy Tong, California Department of Technology The Director of Finance Keely Bosler, Department of Finance Ted Ryan, designee i The Chief Information Officers of three other state agencies Benjamin Bonte, Department of Industrial Relations Sergio Gutierrez, California Environmental Protection Agency
5、Kem Musgrove, Franchise Tax Board One member of the Senate Senator Robert M. Hertzberg Freddie Quintana, Office of Senator Robert M. Hertzberg Cynthia Castillo, Office of Senator Robert M. Hertzberg Charles Loudon, Office of Senator Robert M. Hertzberg One member of the Assembly Assemblymember Ian C
6、alderon Voleck Taing, Office of Assemblymember Ian Calderon Michael Magee, Office of Assemblymember Ian Calderon *Contributions were provided by Kai Stinchcombe who withdrew before the completion of this report. ii Table of Contents i. List of Blockchain Working Group Members .i ii. Table of Content
7、s . iii iii. Introductory Letter, Blockchain Working Group Chair .v I. Executive Summary and Recommendations .1 II. Legislative Charge and Working Group Process .13 III. Blockchain and its Defining Characteristics .17 IV. Considerations for Appropriate Application .23 A. Framework for assessing the
8、fitness of blockchain .24 B. Ethical considerations .27 C. Digital identity .32 D. Cybersecurityand risk management .40 E. Privacy infrastructure .46 F. State Information Technology staff perspective .53 VI. Potential Application Areas .58 A. Vital records.59 B. Health records .65 C. Supply chain .7
9、2 1. Food and agriculture .73 2. Pharmaceuticals .79 D. Property .84 1. Real estate .85 2. Vehicles and parts .90 3. Property insurance .96 4. Firearms .100 E. Utilities and natural resources .101 1. Energy sector .101 2. Natural resources .108 F. Finance, payments encourage lenders, title insurers,
10、 and other private-sector actors to adopt efficient new technologies; encourage new players to enter the space; encourage governments and regulators to provide a level playing field and remove barriers; and encourage all parties to pass savings on to the end user. REC V.D.4. Real Estate: Vendors and
11、 Procurement. Allow vendors to describe the system they can build and the costs, let them choose the underlying technologies to employ, and let the States procurement officials select the most competitive bid. REC V.D.5. Vehicles and Parts. Further investigation is needed to identify whether there a
12、re specific regulatory barriers to applying blockchain technology to use cases in vehicles and parts. None are known at this time. 8 REC V.D.6. Vehicles and Parts: License Registration. Discussions with the Department of Motor Vehicles should continue to determine whether registration of motor vehic
13、le operators is an appropriate use case for blockchain technology. REC V.D.7. Property Insurance. Since streamlining insurer operations could have significant benefits for constituents in terms of pricing, access, and convenience, the state should encourage private industry to adopt blockchain techn
14、ology as appropriate. California should also keep an open dialogue with industry to advance legislation and policies that might encourage and enable benefits to the consumer while minimizing potential risks such as potential loss of privacy. REC V.D.8. Firearms. Although blockchain technology may fi
15、nd applications in firearms-related data in California, no opportunities have presented themselves at this time. _ Utilities and Natural Resources REC V.E.1. Energy Sector. Additional discussion and research are required to determine whether the concept of a “regulatory sandbox” is feasible in Calif
16、ornia REC V.E.2. Water Sector. The State should evaluate the opportunity for blockchain- based technology to support a more efficient framework that further leverages the momentum from recent California water data efforts. Addressing the needs of different stakeholders to control and monitor how the
17、y responsibly share water data could enhance the efficiency of regulatory efforts, support more transparent decision-making, and ultimately, increase trust among stakeholders. _ Finance, Payments, and Commercial Business REC V.F.1. Welfare and Entitlement Programs. Any pilots should be done at a sma
18、ll scale that will not negatively affect vulnerable populations who rely on these services. To our knowledge, blockchain has not yet been used for entitlements, welfare, or social benefits by any government in the United States. REC V.F.2. Taxes and Revenue. Evaluate and study the potential for bloc
19、kchain application to better administer, collect, and detect fraud related to sales and use taxes. 9 REC V.F.3. Bonds and Public Finance. Research blockchain-based digital municipal bond issuance programs and the creation of a consortium to manage negotiation of bond issuance fees for the State of C
20、alifornia. These universal fees would be implemented via blockchain. REC V.F.4. Public Banking. The State of California should monitor developments in public banking and potential opportunities to integrate blockchain technology. REC V.F.5. Digital Asset Banks. Define a framework for Special Purpose
21、 Depository Institutions (SPDI), and subsequently grant existing banks a charter to bank Digital Assets would enable greater monetization and overall growth of these new technologies. REC V.F.6. Cannabis and Banking. California should explore the use of 1) public banks; 2) digital asset deposit and
22、custodial institutions; and 3) a regulatory sandbox for blockchain and cannabis innovators. REC V.F.7. Government Role in Remittances. The State has a limited role in the remittance market; no recommendations at this time. _ Civic Participation REC V.G.1. State Archives. The Secretary of States Stat
23、e Archives Division would be an effective first blockchain pilot project. The Division should gather input from stakeholders and consider issuing a Request for Information to help outline the scope of the project and required budget. If indicated, the California legislature should work with the Secr
24、etary of State leadership to determine how best to move the State Archives online with blockchain technology. REC V.G.2. Business Programs. The Secretary of States business programs section may be a potential use case in the future, as the Secretary of States employees deploy a new technology when d
25、eveloping future modules for the new portal. REC V.G.3. Internet Voting. Security experts generally agree that internet-based implementations of voting systems, blockchain or otherwise, have not overcome security challenges. In applications to date, blockchain-based systems rely on factors other tha
26、n blockchain, such as centralized voter databases, facial ID or postal delivery, cryptographic mixing, dual-device vote validation, etc., to solve these problems. Those 10 experimenting with new voting technologies in California are encouraged to evaluate the quality of these solutions as a whole, r
27、ather than rely on a specific technology. _ Education and Workforce REC V.H.1. California should emphasize interoperability, security, and scalability when piloting the use of blockchain for education and workforce records. REC V.H.2. The Future of Work Commission should adopt recommendations on ski
28、lls-based hiring and credentials, ensuring workers have the means to control and electronically share credentials in a secure and verifiable manner. REC V.H.3. The State should enable and facilitate a results-focused forum for technology demonstrations that advance public sector applications, levera
29、ging opportunities to re-use, re-purpose, and build upon existing efforts. REC V.H.4. The State should develop a framework of key questions, considerations, and paths forward for groups interacting with the California public school system and public service. Such a framework could help stakeholders
30、identify blockchain-based pilot projects and serve as a public resource. REC V.H.5. The State could encourage creative “cross-pollination” from other sectors and application areas by incentivizing and providing a safe space for transparent discussion of lessons learned and best practices. Illustrati
31、ng the different phases of technology adoption, and encouraging discussion of risks, benefits, and “readiness levels” needed along the way will provide clarity for technology developers, policy writers, and solution adopters moving forward. The Role of State Government Working Group members consider
32、ed the role of state government in ensuring appropriate application of blockchain to promote State government effectiveness, efficiency, and transparency. REC VI.1. Consider establishing a Blockchain Innovation Zone to incentivize and provide safe harbor to blockchain companies working to solve Cali
33、fornias most pressing problems. 11 REC VI.2. Foster collaboration through supporting a multi-stakeholder advisory group to promote best practices that would include government regulatory agencies, consumer advocacy groups and other industry stakeholders. REC VI.3. Create a unit within the California
34、 Department of Technology to monitor developments in the blockchain industry. Possible responsibilities for this unit include: i. Monitoring and reporting any consumer protection issues. ii. Train the IT workforce within government agencies. iii.Working with the state legislature and local governmen
35、ts to create flexible and adaptive regulations. iv. Attending or hosting conferences to encourage responsible blockchain business development in California. v. Arranging community education programs to teach more Californians about consumer protective measures related to blockchain and ensure that l
36、aws are adaptive to changes in the industry. REC VI.4. Blockchain definition. The Legislature should adopt an accurate, concise definition of blockchain, such as that proposed in this report. With this agreement, policymakers can turn to two questions: 1) How can blockchain be used to increase effic
37、iency? and 2) What changes to state laws and regulations will be needed to implement the new technology? REC VI.5. Neutral terminology. Adopt technology-neutral terminology to expand use cases for blockchain. 12 Legislative Charge + Working Group Process 13 II. II. Introduction Legislative Charge an
38、d Statement of Need Blockchain has been a topic of discussion among state governments searching for technologies that will increase government efficiency and boost transparency. Advocates have touted blockchain as a means to save money, accelerate processes and increase security. Although blockchain
39、 is often associated with cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin, its potential reaches beyond financial technologies to applications of “smart contracts” or other use cases requiring authenticated distributed records, including title and property records, identity authentication, supply chains, internati
40、onal remittances and more. Amid growing interest for potential use cases from the public and private sector, California began to explore the use and regulation of blockchain technology for California government transactions, its businesses and residents. Assembly Bill 2658 (Calderon) established the
41、 Blockchain Working Group and charged its members with submitting a report to the Legislature by July 2020. The report includes policy recommendations and evaluates potential uses, risks and benefits to state government and California-based business as well as amendments to existing law that may be
42、affected by the deployment of blockchain technology. Working Group Process The California Government Operations Agency (GovOps) created an internal advisory group to establish a process for soliciting nominations (including self- nominations) and to review and consider candidates who had applied or been nominated. Several categories of representatives were established in the legislation, to ensure a group balanced among r
sgpjbg002
工作日 9:30 - 18:00
会员动态：
报告分类
新质生产力
ChatGPT
新能源汽车
大模型
Sora
机器人
微短剧
芯片
薪酬
白皮书
低空经济
数据要素
创新药
人工智能
AI产业
信息科技
互联网
消费经济
汽车交通
电商零售
传媒娱乐
医药健康
投资金融
能源环境
地产建筑
传统产业
英文报告
其它
扫码登录
手机快捷登录
账号登录
