This article was originally published on forbes.com.

There is an intense debate ongoing in the state of Tennessee about a bill to update its Uniform Commercial Code. In years past, this might have been seen as an uncontroversial and boring change to the law that is of interest only to financial businesses based in the state.

However, the proposed changes come at a time of increased anxiety about central bank digital currencies and all they entail – financial surveillance and a loss of individual autonomy over transactions. These well-founded concerns are juxtaposed with a drive for legal clarity for the use of digital assets within the commercial sphere, as Tennessee positions itself as one of the friendliest states for bitcoin.

The UCC's amendments, particularly Article 12, aim to provide a robust legal framework that acknowledges the unique nature of digital assets like bitcoin. These changes are designed to facilitate the use of digital currencies in commerce and lending, but they have paradoxically ignited fears among those wary of increased government control and the specter of CBDCs.

Over the past year, governors Kristi Noem of South Dakota and Ron DeSantis of Florida have promoted themselves as bulwarks against the threat of CBDCs. They have pointed to their opposition to these UCC amendments in their states as tangible actions they have taken in support of financial freedom. Their actions, celebrated in conservative circles, underscore a broader skepticism towards any legal or financial innovation that could pave the way for a programmable centralized currency, which is rightly viewed as a dire threat to personal liberty.

However, a close examination of the UCC amendments reveals a different story – one that allows bitcoin to become deeply ingrained in the state economy while supporting the right of individuals to custody digital assets.

The backlash against the UCC's Article 12, while rooted in legitimate concerns over privacy and autonomy, seems to stem from a misunderstanding of its implications. The amendments do not pave the way for CBDCs. However, they do provide a regulatory framework for self-custody of digital assets and their use as collateral in contractual arrangements.

It may be that the UCC amendments are a Trojan horse for bitcoin adoption, which itself provides leverage against CBDCs. Our central banking apparatus continues to prepare for an eventual rollout of a CBDC in the United States, and when that day comes, the more closely bitcoin is intertwined with the economy, the more power individuals and businesses will have to resist it.

Because the UCC amendments do not expedite the introduction of CBDCs, community voices who oppose the UCC on those grounds risk misallocating the energy of the anti-CBDC activist base.

Having said that, people who are aware of the danger of CBDCs should be commended for engaging with this issue and asking tough questions of their lawmakers. Tennessee, and other state governments, needs to do more to protect its citizens from financial surveillance and censorship.

The demands of those in the anti-CBDC movement are reasonable; they want state lawmakers to provide a full-throated repudiation of CBDCs whenever they advance laws that change the nature of finance and money, and the UCC amendments are an opportunity to do that.

Because the stakes are so high, it is critical that energy is directed efficiently into the right battles at the right times. For the economy to thrive, legal and regulatory frameworks must evolve to unlock the power of digital assets, and bitcoin in particular.

At the same time, the advancement of CBDCs must be stopped at every opportunity. To achieve both of these objectives will take continued vigilance and engagement alongside education about digital assets as they transform the landscape of money and finance.