The Electronic Trading Association (ETA) has signaled a more constructive stance on Bitcoin, with CEO Jason Oxman saying the group is not opposed to the network and is open to partnerships. This is especially true if customer demand and seller demand point in that direction. In an interview with CoinDesk, Oxman characterized ETA’s position as technology neutral, pointing to recent BitPay activity as evidence that Bitcoin-related innovation is on the table.
These changes are also reflected in ETA’s membership changes. On August 6, the trade group announced Atlanta-based Bitcoin payments provider BitPay as the first cryptocurrency company to join the ETA. The association represents major players in electronic payments, including Visa, MasterCard, Amazon and PayPal, and said this addition highlights its commitment to engage with new technologies as the payments industry evolves.
Key Takeaways
- ETA CEO Jason Oxman said the organization does not advocate for Bitcoin and has not taken a position against any other technology. Electronic transactions are treated as a common denominator.
- BitPay, which joined ETA on August 6, became the first virtual currency company member, suggesting that existing payment groups may be willing to work with Bitcoin processors.
- Oxman cited the Bitcoin Foundation’s role in educating ETA members (beginning with ETA events in 2013) as one of the reasons members are starting to see Bitcoin as an “exciting development.”
- Discussing New York’s BitLicense proposal, Oxman argued that regulators should avoid reflexive rules for “new things” and instead conduct in-depth research into how the Bitcoin system and consumer protections work.
Why ETA is talking more openly about Bitcoin
Oxman’s comments emphasize that ETA’s authority is broader than a single payment network. He told CoinDesk in an interview that the association’s position is focused on promoting electronic transactions. This means that the transaction format ultimately follows what the merchant and customer choose.
This framing is important because it positions Bitcoin as another option within the payments stack (one that could be integrated if it demonstrates value and operational safety) rather than an “alternative.” Oxman specifically pointed to ETA’s partnership with BitPay as a concrete example of how the group approaches innovation without automatically ignoring new models.
Oxman made demand the deciding factor by describing ETA as “open to working with emerging technology startups, including Bitcoin-related companies.” That said, ETA’s involvement appears less like an advocacy for a specific technology and more like an attempt to remain relevant as customers and merchants experiment with Bitcoin payments.
Signals for BitPay membership and traditional payments
An ETA press release introducing BitPay as a member explained that the decision was part of the group’s commitment to embracing new technologies. BitPay’s joining an association that includes the payments giant is significant, even if it does not translate into automatic acceptance of Bitcoin across its entire membership.
Oxman suggested that ETA’s outlook has changed as members gain more practical context. He pointed to a previous event in 2013 where Bitcoin Foundation General Counsel Patrick Murck discussed Bitcoin in business-focused terms. Oxman said Murck’s presentation helped ETA members see Bitcoin as a relevant development for the industry, adding that at least one ETA member has signed a contract with a Bitcoin processor.
These historical details reveal broader dynamics. Payment partnerships often emerge after repeated exposure to regulatory and operational challenges. ETA’s decision to introduce BitPay, and Oxman’s explanation of why, suggest that Bitcoin’s perceived legitimacy among mainstream payments stakeholders is improving, at least in the context of how Bitcoin processing can be applied to established transaction workflows.
BitLicense Debate: Consumer Protection vs. innovation
Oxman also touched on New York’s BitLicense proposal and the regulatory scrutiny surrounding it. He acknowledged regulators’ concerns were understandable, particularly concerns about consumer protection in new payment systems. In his view, if alternative payment options are not well-established and widely deployed, regulators will feel more pressure to step in to protect consumers who are not already provided with these protections.
This position reflects the tension at the heart of the Bitcoin policy debate. Overly strict rules can raise compliance barriers and slow experimentation, while weak oversight can expose users. Oxman argued that ETA had previously spent significant time overcoming regulatory uncertainty when new payment methods, such as PayPal, emerged and ensuring that government action did not constrain innovation.
But he said New York should not treat Bitcoin as a special case that should be regulated using reflexive logic. Instead, he urged the New York Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) to conduct a more in-depth investigation into Bitcoin’s technical operations and what additional steps Bitcoin providers, including Bitcoin processors, are taking to protect both consumers and merchants.
Importantly, Oxman’s position is not a call to ignore regulation. This calls for regulation built around how Bitcoin actually works, rather than rules that apply because the technology is new.
New York’s regulatory schedule changes
Meanwhile, New York’s BitLicense review process is still ongoing. As Cointelegraph previously reported, NYDFS Administrator Benjamin Lawsky extended the public comment period on the BitLicense proposal by 45 days, pushing the deadline to October 21. The extension follows a joint letter from BTC China, Huobi, and OkCoin (referred to as the “big three” by Cointelegraph) outlining their concerns and requesting changes to the proposal.
For investors and market participants, these procedural updates can be as important as the policies themselves. A longer comment period means regulators are being more intentional about considering industry feedback, which could ultimately impact how stringent compliance obligations are set. This also means that businesses preparing for the BitLicense regime may face changing expectations as regulators refine their approaches.
As ETA continues to build relationships with Bitcoin-focused companies such as BitPay and New York’s BitLicense review, and through the extended comment period, key questions for the market will be how the regulator will translate consumer protection concerns into rules that reflect Bitcoin’s actual system design, and whether participation from mainstream payments stakeholders will continue to grow as compliance certainty improves.