Recently, the X platform, owned by Elon Musk, officially acquired the currency transmission license issued by Rhode Island, which also includes crypto payments.
Formerly known as Twitter, X is now authorized to offer services for storing, transferring and exchanging Bitcoin and other digital assets to its users. See below for all the details.
Elon Musk’s X secures license for crypto transactions and Bitcoin payments
Twitter, or X as it was recently renamed by Elon Musk, has been granted the Rhode Island Currency Transmission License, the license required to conduct crypto transactions and payments within the state.
Specifically, this license enables Twitter to provide services related to virtual currencies for the benefit of its users, including the storage, transfer and exchange of digital assets.
According to the Rhode Island Department of Business Regulatory, anyone or any entity that handles virtual currency or conducts virtual currency transactions on behalf of a third party must obtain a currency transmission license, which has now been granted to Twitter.
The license covers cryptocurrency wallets, exchange platforms and payment processors that hold funds within the wallets.
Finally, both Twitter (now X) and its founder Elon Musk have expressed a clear interest in becoming more than just a social platform.
Indeed, the company recently expanded its involvement in cryptocurrency through a partnership with Strike, a Bitcoin payments app, allowing users to send and receive tips in Bitcoin.
In addition, it has introduced support for displaying Bitcoin and Ethereum addresses in user profiles. Hence, the recent announcement sheds new light on X.
As we know, over the past few months, the social network has gone through several challenges that brought it close to bankruptcy, as openly admitted by Elon Musk. Now, it seems, it may all be resolved.
X and arbitration cases by former employees after Musk’s acquisition
The social media platform X is facing 2,200 arbitration cases filed by former employees in response to the mass layoffs that followed Elon Musk’s acquisition of the company last year.
Recently, X’s legal team argued that the company did not instruct employees to opt for arbitration and therefore cannot be expected to cover most of the filing fees.
This revelation was made through a document filed Monday in a Delaware district court. The document specifically names Twitter, Inc, X Corp, X Holdings I, Inc, X Holding Corp. and Elon Musk as defendants.
In addition, the document names former senior-level network engineer, Chris Woodfield, as a plaintiff, representing both himself and others in similar situations. Woodfield, for his part, claims that the social network failed to fulfill its promise of paying severance pay following his termination.
In addition, Twitter (now X) has delayed alternative dispute resolution by not covering the costs necessary to initiate the Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services (JAMS) arbitration process.
According to the JAMS website, the filing fee for “matters between two parties” is $2000, while “for questions based on a clause or agreement required as a condition of employment, the employee is only required to pay $400.”
With this basic fee applied to all 2,200 cases, total filing fees are around $3.5 million, with additional costs likely ahead.
However, X’s legal team argues that the company has not instructed employees to opt for arbitration and, therefore, it cannot be expected to cover most of the filing fees.
More controversies for X: former Twitter employees complain of delays and uncovered costs
In a case similar to the one above filed in the Northern District of California, some former Twitter employees claim that the company forced them to arbitrate their disputes as a condition of receiving severance pay.
However, it later delayed more than 891 arbitration cases without covering the relevant required filing fees.
The arbitration system has been criticized by some because of its secretive nature, which makes it difficult for current and future workers to obtain information about how a company treats its employees.
In many large companies, employees are required to sign an employment arbitration agreement, which means that in order to speak freely in court, they must obtain an exemption from a judge.
Proponents argue that the system is an efficient way for companies and their workers to resolve disputes, protecting workers from incurring large legal fees, especially if they lose the case.