A significant regulatory shift just took effect in California. Governor Gavin Newsom signed legislation that grants the state authority to take custody of cryptocurrency and digital assets held on centralized exchanges if those accounts remain inactive for three consecutive years.
This move raises critical questions for the crypto community. When your assets sit idle on a regulated platform, you're essentially delegating control to both the exchange operator and now, in this jurisdiction, to state authorities. The three-year threshold might seem generous until you realize that many retail traders abandon accounts after market cycles shift or life circumstances change.
What makes this particularly noteworthy isn't just the custody transfer itself—it's the precedent it establishes. Other states could follow suit with similar or stricter policies. For exchange users, this adds another layer of counterparty risk beyond the platform's operational or security concerns.
The broader implication: centralized platforms remain subject to expanding government regulatory frameworks. This underscores why many in the space emphasize self-custody and decentralized solutions as risk mitigation strategies. Whether you're a long-term holder or active trader, understanding your jurisdiction's policies on dormant accounts and asset custody has become essential due diligence.
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
11 Likes
Reward
11
8
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
MysteriousZhang
· 5h ago
Unclear and impressive comment from Old Zhang (in the style of active Web3 community users):
---
Three years? Bro, this threshold is set way too naively. The real retail investors won't check their accounts for two years and will be wiped out. By then, the state government will directly take over... This is the original sin of centex.
---
Why still keep funds on exchanges? How many times have I said this, yet some people still don't self-custody. Now, look at this, the money isn't even theirs anymore.
---
Haha, California is leading the way. Won't other states be far behind... Sooner or later, they'll all see cold wallets.
---
Laughing to death, Texas next door has already been resisting. The US system is just each state feeling their way across the river.
---
So I’ve always advised people in the group to self-custody. Now it’s too late to regret, right?
---
This move reminds me of something... It seems a country did the same thing before, and everyone knows how it turned out.
---
Counterparty risk is everywhere. I used to think exchanges were safe, but now the government is also coming to take a share.
View OriginalReply0
SchrodingerWallet
· 01-11 12:31
Has it been three years without activity and then confiscated by the state government? Bro, isn't this just a disguised fine? Hurry up and withdraw your coins...
---
Self-custody is really awesome. I’ve always said that CEXs are traps. Now it’s even worse, as the government is paying attention.
---
Wait, isn’t this logic a bit weird... If an account is inactive, is it considered to have abandoned all rights? What if I really forget a wallet key?
---
California’s move is really ruthless. Other states will definitely follow suit. Now the value of self-custody is fully realized.
---
The three-year setting is actually okay, but the question is, who defines "inactivity"? Does one transfer count...
---
So now even idle assets have to be taxed, right? I really admire the creativity of US taxation.
---
This is the biggest risk of CEXs. It’s not hacking or running away, but legal confiscation. Wake up, everyone.
View OriginalReply0
NFTRegretDiary
· 01-11 11:54
Damn, California's recent moves are truly outrageous... Not moving for three years and getting seized? Looks like I really need to keep the keys myself
---
Another reason for me to HODL my wallet, damn
---
Now I understand why everyone is hyping self-custody, centralized exchanges have really become hot potatoes
---
Three years sounds lenient, but how many accounts are just sitting there gathering dust...
---
I'm done, sooner or later the whole country will push for it, cold wallets are still the best
---
Wait, isn't this outright stealing coins? The government's move is really clever
---
I knew it, exchanges are always just an excuse, the government is the biggest risk
---
No wonder Newsom is not to blame, this is the fate of CeFi, distributed is the future
View OriginalReply0
ApeShotFirst
· 01-11 11:53
Damn, just confiscated after three years? I really can't trust leaving my coins on the exchange!
View OriginalReply0
GateUser-bd883c58
· 01-11 11:39
Wow, after three years of inactivity, California confiscated my assets? I directly moved all my coins out of the centralized exchange.
View OriginalReply0
SandwichTrader
· 01-11 11:39
Whoa, are they starting to confiscate now? You still have to manage your own coins.
View OriginalReply0
AlgoAlchemist
· 01-11 11:36
Confiscated if not moved for three years? California's move is really impressive... Self-preservation is the way to go.
View OriginalReply0
WalletManager
· 01-11 11:29
Oh no, that's why I've been saying private keys should be self-managed... I haven't touched it for three years and the state government took it away. The risk factor needs to be recalculated.
A significant regulatory shift just took effect in California. Governor Gavin Newsom signed legislation that grants the state authority to take custody of cryptocurrency and digital assets held on centralized exchanges if those accounts remain inactive for three consecutive years.
This move raises critical questions for the crypto community. When your assets sit idle on a regulated platform, you're essentially delegating control to both the exchange operator and now, in this jurisdiction, to state authorities. The three-year threshold might seem generous until you realize that many retail traders abandon accounts after market cycles shift or life circumstances change.
What makes this particularly noteworthy isn't just the custody transfer itself—it's the precedent it establishes. Other states could follow suit with similar or stricter policies. For exchange users, this adds another layer of counterparty risk beyond the platform's operational or security concerns.
The broader implication: centralized platforms remain subject to expanding government regulatory frameworks. This underscores why many in the space emphasize self-custody and decentralized solutions as risk mitigation strategies. Whether you're a long-term holder or active trader, understanding your jurisdiction's policies on dormant accounts and asset custody has become essential due diligence.