What aspects of New York's new BitLicense have most affected New York-based companies already?
How have California and other states who are planning BTC policy learned from New York's example? (For example, have other states commented in public on the BitLicense?)
To answer your first question, @Cointelegraph writes "burdensome and expensive process of acquiring such a license, the lack of agility as a consequence of the regulations, or customers' privacy concerns".
Companies who have left New York state because of the BitLicense include, amongst others: ShapeShift, BitFinex, Kraken, LocalBitcoins,Rebit and Genesis Mining.
The blockchain which is used as the underlying transmission component for bitcoin is modeled on the notion of a deregulated system. Attempts by players to regulate a deregulated market demonstrate inadequate understanding of the blockchain technology, while failing to acknowledge the fundamental human right of free market participation by free people.
People who gripe about regulation for bitcoin and blockchain companies seem to be completely ignorant of how the existing legal framework already applies to these operations.
Since current laws are written in such a broad way that they already cover the overwhelming majority of what one can do with digital currencies.
Operating a business in the quagmire of uncertainty, when you don't know when regulation will come and and when it comes what it will be is much worse then having an established framework that you can use as a guide.
Elliptic is an example of a company that applied for and was granted the license.
The "primer for policy makers" is a great resource about regulation and bitcoin.
