The New Hampshire Digital Asset Securities Act, specifically RSA 421-B:2, defines a “digital asset security” broadly. This definition is crucial for determining regulatory oversight. The Act’s scope is intended to capture assets that function as securities, regardless of their technological form. Therefore, an asset that is a digital representation of a debt instrument, where ownership is recorded on a distributed ledger and confers rights to future payments based on the issuer’s performance, would generally fall under the definition of a security. This aligns with the Howey Test principles, which are often incorporated into state securities laws, focusing on investment of money in a common enterprise with the expectation of profits derived solely from the efforts of others. The key is the economic reality of the transaction and the rights conferred, not merely the underlying technology. In New Hampshire, the Department of Securities Regulation is tasked with enforcing these provisions. The Act aims to provide investor protection by subjecting these digital asset securities to the same registration and anti-fraud provisions as traditional securities.

The New Hampshire Digital Assets Law, specifically RSA 332-I, governs the treatment of digital assets upon the death of their owner. This chapter outlines the procedures for digital asset fiduciaries to access, control, or terminate a user’s digital assets. Section RSA 332-I:3 addresses the fiduciary’s duty to notify the user’s online provider of the user’s death or disability. The law mandates that a fiduciary must provide proof of the user’s death or disability and proof of the fiduciary’s authority to the online provider. The online provider, in turn, must respond to the fiduciary’s request within a specified timeframe, generally 60 days, and can refuse a request if it conflicts with the provider’s own terms of service or applicable law. The law also specifies that a fiduciary’s request is effective upon receipt by the provider. Therefore, the crucial element for a fiduciary to establish their right to access a digital asset account, such as a cryptocurrency wallet or an online document repository, is the proper documentation demonstrating their legal authority and the user’s incapacitation or demise. This includes presenting a death certificate or a court order of disability, along with the legal document appointing them as fiduciary, like a will or power of attorney.

The New Hampshire Digital Assets Law, specifically RSA 334-F, defines a digital asset broadly to include any digital representation of value that is used as a medium of exchange, a unit of account, or a store of value, and that is not recognized as legal tender by the United States or a foreign government. This definition encompasses cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin and Ether, as well as other forms of digital value. The law also distinguishes between controllable and uncontrollable digital assets. Controllable digital assets are those over which the user has the right to exercise exclusive control, such as private keys. Uncontrollable digital assets, conversely, are those where the user’s rights are not exclusive, often due to the nature of the platform or network. The core of the question revolves around the classification of a digital asset based on the user’s control rights, as stipulated by New Hampshire’s statutory framework. A digital asset is considered controllable if the user possesses the sole ability to access and manage it, typically through exclusive control of private cryptographic keys. This exclusive control is the defining characteristic that differentiates it from assets where access or management might be subject to third-party intermediaries or network protocols that dilute individual, exclusive dominion. Therefore, an asset where the user holds the exclusive private key is by definition a controllable digital asset under RSA 334-F.

The New Hampshire Digital Assets Law, specifically RSA 331-A:1, defines a digital asset broadly to include any record that is used to represent or that records value that is convertible to an interest in an asset or that represents a debt of the issuer, and that is in the form of an electronic record. This definition encompasses a wide array of digital representations of value. When considering the scenario of a cooperative housing corporation in New Hampshire issuing membership shares that are recorded electronically and represent a right to occupy a unit, these electronic records of membership shares fit the statutory definition of a digital asset. The cooperative’s electronic ledger, which records ownership of these shares, functions as a system for managing these digital assets. Therefore, the cooperative, in its capacity as the issuer and manager of these digital assets, is subject to the regulatory framework established by the New Hampshire Digital Assets Law. This law aims to provide clarity and legal certainty for the creation, ownership, and transfer of digital assets within the state. The key is that the electronic record represents value and a right, making it a digital asset under the statute.

The New Hampshire Digital Assets Law, specifically RSA 330-A:2, defines a “digital asset” broadly to include any record that is used, has been used, or could be used to document a cryptocurrency or other digital form of value. This definition is crucial for understanding how digital assets are treated in various legal contexts, including estate planning and property distribution. The statute’s intent is to encompass a wide range of digital ownership, ensuring that these assets are not overlooked in legal proceedings. The question tests the understanding of this foundational definition within the New Hampshire legal framework. The analysis focuses on identifying which of the provided scenarios falls under the statutory definition of a digital asset as per New Hampshire law. A digital asset, by its nature, is an intangible asset represented by a digital record. Therefore, a cryptocurrency, which is a digital form of value recorded on a distributed ledger, clearly fits this description. Other options, while potentially having digital components, do not represent a distinct form of digital value or ownership in the same way as a cryptocurrency. For instance, a digital photograph is a record, but it doesn’t inherently represent a transferable unit of value or a financial instrument in the context of digital asset law. Similarly, a software license, while digital, represents a right to use software, not a standalone digital asset of value. A digital signature, while a digital record, is a method of authentication and not an asset itself. The core of the definition in RSA 330-A:2 emphasizes the “digital form of value” aspect.

The New Hampshire Digital Assets Act, specifically RSA 475-B:101, outlines the requirements for licensing entities engaged in digital asset business. A key aspect of this is the definition of “digital asset” and the scope of activities that trigger licensing. RSA 475-B:101, II, states that a person shall not engage in the business of a digital asset transfer, digital asset custody, or digital asset exchange in New Hampshire without a license. The definition of “digital asset” under RSA 475-B:102, I, includes a virtual currency that can be used to purchase goods or services, is a unit of account, or is store of value, and is not legal tender, regardless of whether it is convertible to fiat currency. In this scenario, “Cryptosmith LLC” is facilitating the exchange of various digital assets, including those that function as a store of value and a medium of exchange, for fiat currency. This activity falls squarely within the definition of a digital asset exchange business as contemplated by the New Hampshire statute. Therefore, Cryptosmith LLC is required to obtain a license under RSA 475-B:101, II, to legally conduct its operations within New Hampshire. The act does not differentiate based on the specific blockchain technology used or the volume of transactions for the initial licensing requirement, but rather on the nature of the business activity itself.

The New Hampshire Digital Assets Act, specifically RSA 442-C, defines a “digital asset” broadly to include virtual currencies and other intangible assets. When a business entity, such as a limited liability company (LLC) formed in New Hampshire, engages in the business of money transmission, it is subject to licensing requirements under RSA 382-A. The definition of money transmission under RSA 382-A:1-301 encompasses receiving money for transmission or transmitting money, or monetary value, or any portion thereof, by any means, including but not limited to, the use of any electronic or computer network, or any other electronic means. This definition is inclusive and is intended to cover a wide range of financial activities involving the movement of value, which would certainly include the exchange of digital assets for fiat currency or other digital assets. Therefore, an LLC in New Hampshire that facilitates the exchange of digital assets for fiat currency or other digital assets is considered to be engaged in money transmission and must obtain a license from the New Hampshire banking department. The act of exchanging digital assets for fiat currency or other digital assets constitutes receiving and transmitting monetary value, thereby triggering the licensing obligations.

The New Hampshire Digital Assets Law, specifically RSA 331-A:1, defines a “digital asset” broadly to include virtual currency, a digital representation of value that is used as a medium of exchange, unit of account, or store of value, and that is not legal tender, whether or not it is convertible into cash. It also encompasses other digital representations of rights or assets. The Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (UFADAA), as adopted in New Hampshire (RSA 567-B), governs how fiduciaries can access a user’s digital assets upon their death or incapacitation. A key aspect of this act is distinguishing between digital assets that are simply data and those that represent property rights or financial interests. The law aims to provide clear guidelines for estate planning and administration concerning these evolving forms of property. Therefore, an asset that is merely a digital record of information, without any inherent value, convertibility, or property right attached, would not typically fall under the definition of a digital asset for the purposes of fiduciary access under New Hampshire law, even if it is stored digitally. The focus is on assets with economic or property-related characteristics.

The New Hampshire Digital Asset Securities Act, RSA 421-B:1 et seq., specifically addresses the regulation of digital assets that are deemed securities. When a digital asset is offered or sold, and it meets the criteria of an investment contract as defined by the Howey test or similar state-specific tests, it falls under the purview of securities regulations. The New Hampshire Bureau of Securities Regulation is the state agency responsible for enforcing these laws. Under RSA 421-B:3, any security offered or sold in New Hampshire must be registered with the Bureau or qualify for an exemption. Digital assets that are considered securities are subject to these registration requirements unless an exemption applies. The act does not automatically exempt all digital assets; rather, the determination of whether a digital asset is a security and whether it is exempt from registration is a fact-specific inquiry. The question posits a scenario where a company based in New Hampshire issues a new digital asset, and its offering is solely conducted through a decentralized autonomous organization (DAO) that operates exclusively on a blockchain, with no direct interaction or solicitation of New Hampshire residents by the issuer. Even with this decentralized structure, if the digital asset itself constitutes a security under New Hampshire law, and the offering is made to individuals within New Hampshire, the issuer is still obligated to comply with registration or exemption requirements. The absence of direct solicitation or a physical presence in New Hampshire does not negate the state’s jurisdiction over securities transactions involving its residents or assets offered within its regulatory framework. Therefore, the digital asset would likely be considered a security requiring registration or an applicable exemption under RSA 421-B.

The New Hampshire Uniform Digital Assets Law (UDAL), codified in RSA 547-C, provides a framework for managing digital assets upon a person’s death. Specifically, RSA 547-C:11 addresses the rights of a fiduciary to access a user’s digital assets. This section outlines that a fiduciary, such as an executor or administrator of an estate, can generally access a user’s digital assets by providing the service provider with a valid court order or other legal authority. The law distinguishes between content that is the user’s own creation and content that is third-party content or content that is subject to terms of service that prohibit disclosure. When a user has not provided specific instructions in an online tool or account agreement regarding the disposition of digital assets, the fiduciary’s rights are determined by the UDAL and any applicable terms of service. The law aims to balance the user’s privacy expectations with the need for an estate to be properly administered. The core principle is that a fiduciary steps into the shoes of the deceased for the purpose of managing their property, which includes digital assets, unless specifically prohibited by law or the terms of service governing the asset. Therefore, the fiduciary must demonstrate legal authority to access these assets.

The New Hampshire Digital Assets Law, specifically RSA 330-A:2, defines a digital asset as an electronic record that is used as a store of value, regardless of its type, and that can be transferred or exchanged. This definition is broad and encompasses various forms of digital value. When considering a digital asset that is solely used for a specific purpose within a defined ecosystem, such as access to a particular online service or game, and is not generally transferable or exchangeable as a store of value in the broader market, it may not fit the statutory definition of a digital asset under New Hampshire law. The key differentiator is the “store of value” and “transfer or exchange” aspect. If the digital item’s utility is strictly confined to a closed system and lacks independent market value or transferability outside that system, it would likely be classified differently, perhaps as a license or a right to use a service, rather than a digital asset as defined by RSA 330-A:2. The scenario describes “in-game currency” that is exclusively used for purchasing virtual items within a specific video game and cannot be traded for fiat currency or other digital assets outside the game’s platform. This limitation on its transferability and its primary function as an in-game medium of exchange, rather than a general store of value transferable in the open market, means it does not meet the criteria outlined in RSA 330-A:2. Therefore, it would not be considered a digital asset under New Hampshire law.

The New Hampshire Digital Assets Law, specifically RSA 330-A:1-a, defines a “digital asset” broadly to include any record or property that exists exclusively in electronic form and has value. This definition is critical for determining the applicability of various legal frameworks, including those governing trusts and estates. When considering a digital asset like a cryptocurrency wallet containing Bitcoin, its nature as an intangible property right, controlled by private keys, falls squarely within this broad definition. The law’s intent is to encompass all forms of electronic property that hold economic or personal value. Therefore, a cryptocurrency wallet, as a digital representation of ownership and control over digital currency, is considered a digital asset under New Hampshire law. This understanding is fundamental for estate planning, asset management, and the legal transfer of such assets. The concept of control, often through private keys, is paramount in defining possession and ownership of digital assets.

The New Hampshire Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (NH UETA), RSA 337-A, governs the validity of electronic signatures and records in commercial transactions. When a digital asset is transferred, the method of authentication used by the transferor is critical. The NH UETA generally permits any reasonable method of authentication, including the use of a unique identifier, cryptographic signature, or other process or symbol. The key is that the method must be attributable to the person and demonstrate intent to sign. In the context of a digital asset transfer, if the blockchain record shows a transaction initiated and confirmed by a specific private key associated with the digital asset’s owner, this would generally be considered a valid electronic signature under the principles of NH UETA, provided it meets the attribution and intent requirements. This is because the private key acts as a unique identifier and cryptographic proof of the owner’s authorization. The scenario describes a transfer of a digital asset where the transaction is verified by a unique cryptographic signature linked to the originating wallet. This aligns with the principles of NH UETA, which recognizes such methods as valid electronic signatures if they are attributable to the person and demonstrate intent to authenticate the record. The question asks about the legal standing of such a transfer in New Hampshire. The NH UETA, specifically RSA 337-A:10, states that an electronic signature has the same legal effect as a traditional signature. Therefore, a transfer authenticated by a unique cryptographic signature linked to the originating wallet would be legally recognized as a valid transfer of the digital asset.

The New Hampshire Digital Asset Securities Law, RSA 421-B:1 et seq., specifically addresses the regulation of digital assets within the state. When a digital asset is offered or sold, and it meets the criteria of a security, it falls under the purview of this law. The definition of a security is broad and can encompass various forms of investment contracts. In New Hampshire, the Howey Test, as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court and applied in state securities law, is a primary framework for determining if an asset is a security. The test asks if there is an investment of money in a common enterprise with a reasonable expectation of profits to be derived from the efforts of others. If a digital asset, such as a token or cryptocurrency, is marketed and distributed with the promise of future appreciation based on the development and management efforts of a particular entity or group, it is likely to be classified as a security. Consequently, any offer or sale of such a digital asset would require registration with the New Hampshire Bureau of Securities Regulation or qualification for an exemption. Failure to comply can result in enforcement actions, fines, and rescission offers. The question probes the understanding of when a digital asset transaction necessitates compliance with New Hampshire’s securities regulations, focusing on the underlying economic realities and the criteria for a security.

The New Hampshire Uniform Digital Assets Act (NHUDAA), as codified in RSA 294-E, provides a framework for the disposition of digital assets upon a person’s death. Specifically, RSA 294-E:3-302 addresses the rights of a fiduciary to access a user’s digital assets. This section establishes that a fiduciary, such as an executor or administrator of an estate, can access digital assets if the user has granted them such access through an online tool provided by the custodian or through a separate, specific digital asset will. In the absence of such explicit consent via an online tool or a digital asset will, the fiduciary’s access is generally limited to what is permitted by the terms of service of the digital asset custodian. The law prioritizes the user’s expressed intent and the custodian’s terms of service. Therefore, if Ms. Anya Sharma’s online banking platform’s terms of service, which she implicitly agreed to by using the service, do not grant her designated executor access to her digital financial records, and she has not provided separate consent through a digital asset will or the platform’s specific online tool for granting access, then the executor cannot compel access solely based on their fiduciary role. The law aims to balance the need for estate administration with the privacy expectations of users regarding their digital information.

The New Hampshire Digital Assets Act, specifically RSA 359-G, defines a “digital asset” broadly to include a virtual currency, a token or coin, or any other digital representation of value that is used for payment, investment, or as a store of value, and is not otherwise legal tender or a commodity. It also includes a digital representation of rights or interests in an underlying asset or a contractual right. The Act further categorizes digital assets into three types: convertible virtual currency, commodity virtual currency, and any other digital asset. The scenario describes a digital token issued by “NovaCorp,” which represents a fractional ownership interest in a piece of intellectual property. This token is designed to be traded on a secondary market and provides its holder with a right to a portion of future revenue generated by that intellectual property. This specific characteristic—representing an interest in an underlying asset and a contractual right to revenue—aligns with the broader definition of a digital asset under RSA 359-G, particularly falling under the category of “any other digital asset” that is not a virtual currency or commodity. The question asks about the regulatory classification of this token under New Hampshire law. Given its nature as a representation of ownership and a right to future revenue, it clearly fits the definition of a digital asset. The Act’s purpose is to provide a framework for the regulation of businesses that engage in digital asset transactions, including custody and exchange. Therefore, NovaCorp’s token would be subject to the provisions of the New Hampshire Digital Assets Act. The Act’s scope is intended to encompass various forms of digital representations of value and rights, making the token’s description a direct fit for its regulatory purview.

The New Hampshire Digital Assets Law, specifically RSA 330-A:2, defines a digital asset as an electronic record that is of value and is capable of being transferred, sold, or assigned. This definition is crucial for understanding how various digital items are treated under state law. When considering a virtual land parcel in a metaverse game, its classification hinges on whether it meets this statutory definition. A virtual land parcel, even if purchased with real currency, is generally considered an in-game item or a license to use a digital space within the game’s proprietary environment. It is not typically transferable outside the game’s ecosystem, nor is it independently of value or capable of being sold or assigned in a manner that is legally recognized as a transfer of ownership of a distinct asset under the broader digital asset definition. The game developer usually retains ownership of the underlying code and the virtual world itself, granting players a license to interact with it. Therefore, such virtual land parcels do not fit the legal definition of a digital asset as outlined in New Hampshire law because they lack the independent transferability and distinct value outside the specific gaming platform’s terms of service. The value is derived from the game’s internal economy and is subject to the game’s rules, rather than being a standalone asset with inherent marketability in the broader sense.

New Hampshire’s approach to digital asset regulation, particularly concerning custody and licensing, is primarily shaped by RSA 359-G, the New Hampshire Virtual Currency Business Act. This statute defines “virtual currency” and establishes licensing requirements for businesses engaged in virtual currency transmission or exchange. A key aspect of this act is the requirement for licensees to maintain segregated customer assets, a measure designed to protect consumers in the event of insolvency. The statute outlines specific provisions for the safekeeping of customer assets, including the segregation of these assets from the licensee’s own property. This segregation is crucial for ensuring that customer assets are not commingled with the company’s operational funds or used as collateral for the company’s debts. When a licensee ceases operations or becomes insolvent, these segregated assets are intended to be readily identifiable and available for distribution to customers, thereby minimizing losses. The law also mandates that licensees maintain adequate fidelity bonds or insurance to cover potential losses arising from fraud or dishonesty by their employees. The calculation for the fidelity bond requirement is based on a percentage of the average daily amount of customer virtual currency held by the licensee over the preceding six months, with a minimum and maximum threshold. Specifically, the fidelity bond must be the greater of \$50,000 or 10% of the average daily balance of customer virtual currency held during the preceding six months, capped at \$1,000,000. If the average daily balance of customer virtual currency held by “Quantum Leap Digital Assets LLC” during the preceding six months was \$7,500,000, the calculation for the fidelity bond would be: 10% of \$7,500,000 = \$750,000. Since \$750,000 is greater than the minimum of \$50,000 and less than the maximum of \$1,000,000, the required fidelity bond is \$750,000. This regulatory framework aims to foster confidence in the digital asset market within New Hampshire by imposing robust consumer protection measures on businesses operating within its jurisdiction. The emphasis on segregation and bonding underscores the state’s commitment to safeguarding customer property and ensuring the financial stability of licensed entities.

The New Hampshire Digital Assets Law, specifically RSA 421-B:1 et seq. (the New Hampshire Digital Assets Act), governs the licensing and regulation of businesses involved with digital assets. A key aspect of this law is the definition of “digital asset” and the activities that trigger the need for a license. The law defines a digital asset broadly, encompassing virtual currencies, and also includes specific exclusions. In this scenario, the entity is facilitating the exchange of “tokens” which are defined as units of value that can be used for exchange or as a store of value on a distributed ledger technology. The core of the question lies in whether these tokens, as described, fall under the definition of a digital asset as per RSA 421-B:1, thereby requiring licensing. The law specifically addresses virtual currencies and other forms of digital value. The scenario describes an activity that is directly related to the transfer and exchange of digital representations of value, which aligns with the broad scope of digital assets regulated by the Act. Therefore, the entity’s operations would likely be considered the business of dealing in digital assets, necessitating a license. The exemption for certain types of software or digital content that do not represent value or a claim on value is not applicable here, as the tokens are explicitly stated to be units of value for exchange.

The New Hampshire Digital Assets Law, specifically RSA 331-A:53-a, addresses the treatment of digital assets held in trust. This statute clarifies that a digital asset, defined as an electronic record that is created, stored, or transmitted by a person and that has value, is not considered tangible property for the purposes of a trust. Therefore, the law does not require a trustee to hold a digital asset in a specific manner that would necessitate physical possession or a traditional tangible asset framework. The focus of the law is on the trustee’s duty to manage and distribute the digital asset according to the terms of the trust instrument, regardless of its incorporeal nature. The statute aims to provide clarity for trustees managing digital assets, ensuring they can fulfill their fiduciary duties without being constrained by outdated property classifications. The trustee’s obligation is to act prudently and in accordance with the trust’s provisions, which may involve accessing, transferring, or otherwise managing the digital asset in a manner appropriate for its type. The statute’s intent is to facilitate the administration of trusts that include digital assets, recognizing their increasing prevalence in modern estate planning.

The New Hampshire Uniform Digital Assets Act (NHUDAA), codified in RSA Chapter 547-D, governs the rights and responsibilities concerning digital assets. A key aspect of this act is the definition and treatment of a “digital asset.” Under RSA 547-D:101(11), a digital asset is broadly defined as an electronic record that is not connected with a physical asset, in which a person has a right or interest. This definition encompasses a wide array of digital property, including cryptocurrencies, digital collectibles, and other forms of electronically stored value or information that are not tied to a tangible object. The purpose of this broad definition is to ensure that the law can adapt to the evolving landscape of digital property and provide a clear legal framework for their management, transfer, and inheritance. The NHUDAA aims to provide clarity and certainty for individuals and fiduciaries dealing with digital assets, especially in estate planning and administration. The act distinguishes between different types of digital assets, such as “custodial” and “non-custodial” assets, which can affect how a fiduciary can access and manage them. The core principle is that the legal framework should respect the nature of digital assets as intangible property rights.

The New Hampshire Digital Assets Law, specifically RSA 334-E, governs the rights and responsibilities related to digital assets. When a person dies, the law outlines how their digital assets are to be handled. RSA 334-E:3 addresses the fiduciary’s authority to access and manage digital assets. This section clarifies that a fiduciary, such as an executor or administrator, can access and control a decedent’s digital assets if the user agreement or terms of service of the digital asset provider permit such access by a fiduciary. It is crucial to understand that the terms of service of the platform providing the digital asset are paramount in determining the extent of a fiduciary’s access. The law does not automatically grant unlimited access; rather, it empowers the fiduciary to act in accordance with the established terms. Therefore, the fiduciary’s ability to manage a deceased individual’s digital assets is contingent upon the specific terms of service of the digital asset provider, which may grant or restrict such access. This principle is foundational to understanding how digital estate planning and administration function under New Hampshire law, ensuring that the intent of the service provider and the legal framework align.

The New Hampshire Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) Article 12, which governs digital assets, defines a “controllable account” as an account in which the account debtor has agreed that the account may be transferred free of defenses or claims. A “digital asset” is defined as a coin or other token that is a store of value, that is used as a medium of exchange, or that is a unit of account. It is also defined as a digital representation of value that is used for payment, settlement, or transaction or that is intended to be used for those purposes. The key concept here is that the transferability of a digital asset, particularly when it is held in a controllable account, is paramount. New Hampshire law, consistent with the broader UCC Article 12, aims to provide a clear framework for the perfection and enforcement of security interests in these assets. When a security interest is granted in a controllable account, the secured party perfects its interest by taking control of the account. Control is achieved when the secured party obtains the ability to use or dispose of the controllable account without the action of the account debtor. This aligns with the principles of Article 9 of the UCC regarding the perfection of security interests in intangible assets. The question probes the understanding of how a security interest in a controllable account, as defined under New Hampshire’s digital asset laws, is perfected. The perfection of a security interest in a controllable account is achieved through the secured party’s control over that account. This control means the secured party has the ability to use or dispose of the account without the account debtor’s participation. Therefore, the correct method of perfection is through obtaining control.

The New Hampshire Digital Assets Law, specifically RSA 331-A:77, defines a “digital asset” broadly. It encompasses electronic records that an owner has a right to either use or to possess and direct the disposition of. This definition is critical for understanding how various forms of digital property are treated under state law. For instance, cryptocurrencies, digital art (like NFTs), and online account credentials that grant access to valuable digital information or services all fall under this umbrella if they meet the criteria of being an electronic record with a right of use or disposition. The law’s intent is to provide a framework for managing these assets, particularly in contexts like estate planning and fiduciary administration, ensuring that digital property is not overlooked or left in legal limbo. The key is the owner’s control and the nature of the asset as an electronic record. Other states may have slightly different definitions or specific exclusions, but New Hampshire’s approach is inclusive of assets where the owner has demonstrable control over their use or transfer. The law aims to bring clarity to a rapidly evolving area of property law.

The New Hampshire Digital Assets Law, specifically RSA 359-G:1, defines a “digital asset” broadly to include any representation of value that is used to pay for goods or services, or for any other lawful purpose, and that is transferable and capable of being independently transmitted, whether or not that value is represented by a central bank digital currency. This definition encompasses a wide array of digital items, including but not limited to cryptocurrencies, stablecoins, and certain forms of digital tokens that confer rights or value. The key elements are transferability, independent transmission, and representation of value. A digital asset is distinct from a traditional security or commodity, though some digital assets may exhibit characteristics of these. The law aims to provide a framework for the regulation of businesses that engage in digital asset transactions, such as money transmission businesses, to ensure consumer protection and market integrity within New Hampshire. The definition is intentionally broad to accommodate the evolving nature of digital assets and to prevent circumvention of regulatory oversight by labeling assets in a way that avoids existing categories. Therefore, a digital representation of ownership in a decentralized autonomous organization (DAO) that can be traded and used to access specific services within that organization would fall under this broad definition as it represents value, is transferable, and can be independently transmitted.

New Hampshire’s approach to digital assets, particularly concerning the regulation of money transmission and virtual currency businesses, is primarily governed by RSA 382-A, Article 2, which deals with investment securities and investment companies, and RSA 386-G, which specifically addresses virtual currency. RSA 386-G.2 establishes licensing requirements for entities engaging in virtual currency business activity. This includes the necessity of obtaining a license from the New Hampshire banking department. The definition of “virtual currency business activity” under RSA 386-G.1(IV) is broad and encompasses various operations such as receiving, holding, transmitting, or selling virtual currency. When an entity, like the hypothetical “Quantum Ledger Solutions,” operates in New Hampshire and its activities fall within this definition, it is subject to the licensing mandate. The question hinges on whether the specific actions described constitute virtual currency business activity as defined by New Hampshire law. Offering a platform for users to exchange one form of virtual currency for another, and facilitating the transfer of these assets between users, directly aligns with the statutory definition of transmitting and selling virtual currency. Therefore, Quantum Ledger Solutions would require a license under RSA 386-G.2. The explanation does not involve any calculations.

The New Hampshire Digital Assets Law, specifically RSA 332-I:1, defines a “digital asset” broadly to include “an electronic record that is transferable or usable as a commodity, service, or medium of exchange.” This definition is crucial for determining the applicability of various estate planning and fiduciary statutes. In the scenario presented, the cryptocurrency wallet, containing Bitcoin and Ethereum, represents an electronic record that is transferable and has been used as a medium of exchange and a store of value, fitting the statutory definition. The digital collectible, purchased with fiat currency and possessing unique verifiable ownership on a blockchain, also qualifies as an electronic record that is transferable and serves as a commodity. Therefore, both the cryptocurrency holdings and the digital collectible are considered digital assets under New Hampshire law. The legal framework in New Hampshire, like many states, aims to provide clarity on how these assets are treated in estate administration, distinguishing them from intangible personal property in some respects while aligning them with it in others to ensure proper handling by executors and administrators. The core principle is the digital nature and transferability of the asset.

The New Hampshire Digital Assets Act, specifically RSA 359-G, defines a “digital asset” broadly. This act, when considering the intent and scope of regulation, aims to encompass a wide range of intangible assets that are held, transferred, or managed in a digital format. The core of the definition in RSA 359-G:1(IV) includes “a representation of economic, proprietary, or access rights in a tangible or intangible property or a service that is recorded in an electronic or digital form.” This definition is designed to be inclusive. A cryptocurrency, by its nature, represents economic rights and is recorded in an electronic or digital form, fitting squarely within this definition. Similarly, a non-fungible token (NFT) represents proprietary rights in an underlying asset or unique digital content and is also recorded electronically. Therefore, both are considered digital assets under New Hampshire law. The exclusion of certain items, such as email or digital copies of documents not representing economic rights, highlights the focus on assets with inherent value or access capabilities.

The New Hampshire Uniform Digital Assets Act (NH UDAA), as codified in RSA Chapter 547-D, provides a framework for the disposition of digital assets upon a person’s death. A crucial aspect of this act is the distinction between a digital asset’s content and its terms of service. When a user creates an account with a service provider, they enter into a contract, the terms of service, which dictate how the provider will handle the account and its associated digital assets. The NH UDAA generally respects these terms of service, especially when they are legally binding and do not violate public policy. In this scenario, the deceased, a resident of New Hampshire, had a digital asset account with “CloudVault,” a service provider. The terms of service for CloudVault explicitly state that upon the user’s death, the account will be terminated, and all data within it will be permanently deleted. The deceased’s will, executed in accordance with New Hampshire law, directs that all digital assets be distributed to their designated beneficiary. However, the will does not specifically override or address the terms of service of CloudVault. The NH UDAA grants a fiduciary the ability to access digital assets, but this access is subject to the terms of service of the underlying digital asset custodian. Therefore, the fiduciary’s ability to provide the digital assets to the beneficiary is constrained by CloudVault’s policy. The law prioritizes the contractual agreement between the user and the service provider unless there is a specific provision in the user’s digital estate plan that overrides these terms, or if the terms themselves are found to be unlawful. Since the will does not address the CloudVault terms, and the terms are not inherently unlawful, CloudVault’s terms of service will govern the disposition of the digital assets.

The New Hampshire Digital Assets Law, specifically RSA 331-A:1, defines a “digital asset” broadly. This definition encompasses any representation of value that is used with the intent to be exchanged for goods or services, or for payment of debts, and is not legal tender of the United States, nor of any other country, or is expressly designated by federal or state statute as legal tender. It also includes any other form of intangible property that is readily convertible to cash. In the scenario presented, a cryptocurrency like Bitcoin, which is not legal tender of the United States and is used for exchange of goods and services, falls squarely within this definition. Therefore, the estate of the deceased individual, who held this cryptocurrency, would be subject to the provisions of New Hampshire law governing the disposition of digital assets. The law’s intent is to provide a framework for managing and transferring these assets upon death, similar to traditional property. The question probes the understanding of how New Hampshire law classifies and treats digital assets within its existing legal framework for estate management.