H7413 would create a new Rhode Island statutory chapter called the “Rhode Island Economic Growth Blockchain Act” to promote blockchain-related business development, digital asset innovation, and a more favorable regulatory environment for financial technology companies. The bill makes legislative findings about economic growth, public-private partnerships, and the need for Rhode Island to compete for blockchain and fintech firms. It then establishes a blockchain technology advisory council to advise the state and support research, entrepreneurship, and innovation.
A major feature of the bill is a financial technology sandbox program administered by the superintendent of banking. The sandbox would allow approved businesses to test innovative financial products or services, including blockchain-based products, with temporary waivers from certain statutory or regulatory requirements. Applicants would need to be domestic entities with a physical presence in Rhode Island, undergo background checks, pay a fee, provide consumer disclosures, and post a consumer protection bond. The superintendent could approve, condition, extend, suspend, or revoke sandbox authorizations, and could refer violations to enforcement agencies.
The bill also authorizes the creation of special purpose depository institutions, a new type of Rhode Island-chartered financial institution intended to serve blockchain and digital asset businesses. These institutions would be organized as corporations, accept deposits from business entities rather than individuals, and operate under strict capital, liquidity, bonding, insurance, and compliance requirements. They would generally be prohibited from making loans, but could provide payment services and other banking-related functions, subject to state and federal law and supervision by the banking division.
In addition to creating these new entities and programs, the bill would amend Rhode Island law by adding extensive definitions for blockchain, digital assets, virtual currency, sandbox terms, and special purpose depository institutions, and by directing how these provisions interact with existing banking, currency transmission, and virtual-currency statutes. It also includes severability language and states that it would take effect upon passage. The practical effect would be to expand state oversight of blockchain-related financial activity while creating a new legal framework for experimentation and specialized banking services.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill text is strongly supportive of blockchain and fintech development, emphasizing economic growth, innovation, and competitiveness. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no documented legislative debate in the materials beyond the bill’s own policy rationale. The main points of potential contention are the breadth of regulatory waivers, consumer risk in the sandbox, the creation of a new banking model for digital asset businesses, and the extent to which the bill may overlap with or be constrained by existing state and federal banking and virtual-currency laws.
The bill would add a new chapter to Title 42 and create a new regulatory structure for blockchain innovation, including a banking advisory council, a financial technology sandbox, and special purpose depository institutions. It would affect the Department of Business Regulation, the superintendent of banking, the secretary of state, and businesses seeking to offer digital-asset or blockchain-based financial products. It also expressly coordinates with existing laws in Titles 6, 19, and 42, and provides that those existing provisions control if conflicts cannot be harmonized.
The bill is framed in highly pro-innovation and pro-business terms, with findings emphasizing economic development, job creation, and Rhode Island’s competitiveness in blockchain and financial technology. No votes or committee testimony are provided, so there is no recorded opposition or support from legislators or stakeholders in the supplied materials. Based on the text alone, the measure appears designed to attract fintech and blockchain firms while maintaining a supervisory role for state regulators.
The likely areas of contention are the scope of regulatory relief in the sandbox, the consumer protections attached to experimental financial products, and the creation of a special-purpose depository institution that would serve business depositors tied to blockchain activity. Critics could question whether the bill creates too much flexibility for untested financial products or whether the new institution model introduces safety-and-soundness, anti-money-laundering, and federal preemption concerns. Supporters would likely emphasize the bill’s bonding, disclosure, background-check, and supervisory requirements as safeguards.