All about U.S Congress’s new bill and its intent to protect open-source developers

ambcryptoPublished on 2026-02-28Last updated on 2026-02-28

Abstract

A bipartisan group of U.S. lawmakers introduced the Promoting Innovation in Blockchain Development Act on February 26, aiming to clarify liability for blockchain developers. The bill seeks to protect open-source software developers from being prosecuted under money-transmitting laws, particularly amending Section 1960 of the U.S. Code to limit liability to entities that control customer assets or execute transfers. It comes amid growing regulatory scrutiny and cases like Tornado Cash that raised concerns about criminalizing non-custodial developers. Industry groups, including the Solana Institute and the Blockchain Association, have endorsed the bill, emphasizing the need to distinguish between developers and financial intermediaries. The proposal is part of a broader legislative effort, alongside bills like the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act and the GENIUS Act, to provide regulatory clarity and protect innovation in the crypto ecosystem.

A bipartisan coalition introduced the Promoting Innovation in Blockchain Development Act on 26 February. It aims to clarify liability for blockchain developers.

The proposal, led by Congressmen Scott Fitzgerald, Ben Cline, and Zoe Lofgren, arrived as regulatory pressure intensified around decentralized infrastructure. At the same time, prosecutions involving Tornado Cash amplified concerns about criminalizing open-source software development.

The bill, therefore, amends Section 1960 of the U.S Code, a statute originally designed to combat money laundering. However, enforcement trends increasingly extended its scope towards non-custodial developers who only publish or maintain code.

Under the proposal, liability would apply mainly to entities controlling customer assets or executing transfers on users’ behalf. Meanwhile, developers who simply write or distribute open-source software would fall outside prosecutorial reach.

Congressman Ben Cline emphasized the issue, stating, “For too long, federal overreach has blurred the line between bad actors and the innovators building next-generation technology.”

Similarly, Rep. Scott Fitzgerald had previously stated,

“For years, innovators and software developers have been caught in the crosshairs of an aggressive regulatory approach.”

Industry stakeholders rally behind developer protection bill

Early reactions to the Promoting Innovation in Blockchain Development Act emerged quickly across the blockchain policy ecosystem as the proposal entered public debate. Initial responses focused on the bill’s central premise of protecting non-custodial developers from money-transmitter liability.

The Solana Institute responded quickly, emphasizing the importance of developer protections at a critical stage for open-source infrastructure.

The organization stated,

“We’re grateful to Rep. Fitzgerald, Rep. Ben Cline, and Rep. Zoe Lofgren for championing developers at this critical junction for open-source software development and the crypto ecosystem with the introduction of the Promoting Innovation in Blockchain Development Act.”

Shortly afterwards, broader industry advocacy groups reinforced similar sentiments. The Blockchain Association, for instance, publicly endorsed the legislation through CEO Summer Mersinger.

These responses indicate coordinated industry approval, as stakeholders view the bill as establishing a clear boundary between open-source developers and custodial financial intermediaries.

Crypto bills reshape the U.S regulatory landscape

Recent statements from the Blockchain Association highlight rising momentum for developer protections in Washington. This advocacy also coincides with the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act, S.3611, debated in early 2026. Despite passing the House in July 2025, the CLARITY Act is still in a stalled state.

As negotiations continue, advocates warn that removing developer exemptions could revive enforcement pressure. Meanwhile, the GENIUS Act added stablecoin guardrails while avoiding liability expansion towards software developers.

Parallelly, the Promoting Innovation in Blockchain Development Act narrows Section 1960 towards custodial actors.

Therefore, industry groups have intensified lobbying across dozens of Senate offices in late February 2026. BRCA now stands as a pivotal test for America’s evolving crypto regulatory framework.


Final Summary

  • U.S crypto legislation momentum strengthens developer protections, supporting innovation across major networks.
  • Policy alignment around BRCA and the CLARITY Act may reduce regulatory risk for leading assets such as Bitcoin and Ethereum.

Related Questions

QWhat is the main purpose of the Promoting Innovation in Blockchain Development Act introduced in February?

AThe main purpose of the Promoting Innovation in Blockchain Development Act is to clarify liability for blockchain developers, specifically aiming to protect non-custodial open-source developers from being prosecuted under money-transmitter laws.

QWhich specific U.S. Code section does the new bill seek to amend and why?

AThe bill seeks to amend Section 1960 of the U.S. Code, a statute originally designed to combat money laundering, because its enforcement has increasingly been extended towards non-custodial developers who only publish or maintain code.

QAccording to the bill's supporters, what distinction does the legislation make regarding liability?

AThe legislation distinguishes that liability would mainly apply to entities that control customer assets or execute transfers on users' behalf, while developers who simply write or distribute open-source software would be outside of prosecutorial reach.

QWhich industry organization publicly endorsed the bill through its CEO, Summer Mersinger?

AThe Blockchain Association publicly endorsed the legislation through its CEO, Summer Mersinger.

QHow does the article describe the current state of the CLARITY Act (S.3611) as of early 2026?

AAs of early 2026, the CLARITY Act is described as being in a stalled state, despite having passed the House in July 2025.

Related Reads

Has the 'Digital Gold' Narrative for BTC Failed?

**Title: Has the "Digital Gold" Narrative for Bitcoin Failed?** The article argues that Bitcoin's "digital gold" narrative remains valid despite a recent sharp price decline (from a peak near $126k in Oct 2025 to briefly under $61k in Feb 2026). It presents a long-term investment framework based on three core points: **1. Viewing Bitcoin as an Asset:** Bitcoin is presented as a superior potential store of value compared to gold. Key arguments are its absolute scarcity (21 million cap), superior portability, and transparent auditability via its public ledger. While acknowledging its current use in early, volatile stages (~3-4% global adoption), the author draws parallels to the early, disruptive phases of the internet and e-commerce. **2. Understanding the Recent Downturn:** The current ~50% correction is framed as a predictable, consensus-driven cycle following its post-halving peak (the 2024 halving preceded the Oct 2025 high). A crucial factor is a historic "changing of hands": the influx of new institutional buyers via ETFs allowed early, low-cost holders (miners, OG believers) to take profits. The author notes that while severe, Bitcoin's historical drawdowns (e.g., 93% in 2011, 77% in 2021-22) have been progressively smaller, suggesting maturing holder structure and decreasing volatility over time. **3. The Long-Term Perspective:** The long-term thesis hinges on Bitcoin capturing a portion of gold's market value. With Bitcoin's market cap at ~$1.4 trillion (at $70k) versus gold's ~$20 trillion, significant upside potential exists if the "digital gold" narrative is partially realized. However, the author strongly cautions that short-term risks remain, the bottom is unpredictable, and high volatility is inherent. The real risk is not Bitcoin failing but poor personal position management (over-leverage, wrong capital) and a lack of deep understanding, which can force investors out during severe downturns. The conclusion uses Amazon's 95% crash post-2000 dot-com bubble and subsequent 42x recovery as an analogy. The ultimate question is not if Bitcoin's price will rise, but if an investor's strategy and conviction can withstand the volatility to see the long-term play out. The recent divergence (gold up, Bitcoin down) is posed not as a narrative failure, but as potential evidence of this ongoing, painful transition from a speculative asset to a mainstream allocation.

marsbit7h ago

Has the 'Digital Gold' Narrative for BTC Failed?

marsbit7h ago

Has BTC's 'Digital Gold' Narrative Failed?

The article discusses Bitcoin's "digital gold" narrative, its recent price drop, and long-term outlook through the perspective of "Jason". It argues the narrative is not a failure but that Bitcoin represents a superior, new asset class due to its fixed supply (21 million), portability, and auditability. The piece compares its current ~3-4% global adoption rate to early internet/e-commerce, suggesting significant growth potential. Regarding the 2025-2026 price decline (from ~$126k to briefly under $61k), the author views it as a predictable, consensus-driven sell-off within Bitcoin's ~4-year cycle post-halving, exacerbated by a major "handover" from early, low-cost holders to new institutional buyers via ETFs. A key observation is that historical peak-to-trough drawdowns have lessened over time (e.g., 93% in 2011 to ~50% in 2026), indicating maturing volatility as holder structure changes. For the long term, the author uses a simple framework: Bitcoin's total market cap (~$1.4T at $70k) is only about 7% of gold's (~$20T). Even capturing 30-50% of gold's value would imply substantial upside. However, the article strongly cautions against viewing this as investment advice, emphasizing extreme volatility and the critical importance of risk management, position sizing, and deep fundamental understanding to survive severe drawdowns. It concludes by drawing a parallel to Amazon's 95% crash in 2000 and subsequent 42x recovery, stressing that the key is surviving market cycles to realize long-term potential.

链捕手7h ago

Has BTC's 'Digital Gold' Narrative Failed?

链捕手7h ago

From Code to Cognition: A Ten-Thousand-Word Guide to the Evolution of the Robot Brain

"From Code to Cognition: The Evolution of Robot Brains" The journey of robotic intelligence has shifted dramatically from manually coded systems to AI-driven brains. For decades, robots relied on layered software stacks—perception, state estimation, planning, control—each handcrafted. While predictable, they lacked adaptability. The 2010s saw deep learning revolutionize perception (e.g., object detection) and control (via reinforcement learning), but learned skills remained narrow. The arrival of Large Language Models (LLMs) marked a turning point. LLMs acted as high-level planners, interpreting natural language instructions and generating sequences of actions for traditional robotic systems to execute. However, true integration came with Visual-Language-Action (VLA) models, which fused vision, language, and motion prediction into a single network. Pioneered by models like RT-2 and open-source projects like OpenVLA, VLAs enable robots to reason and act directly from visual input and commands. The most advanced humanoid robots now employ a "dual-brain" architecture: a slow-thinking, large VLA (System 2) for reasoning and planning, and a fast-reacting, small network (System 1) for high-frequency motion control, sometimes with an even lower-level System 0 for balance. This split balances cognition with the physics of real-time movement. Computation is split between onboard hardware (e.g., NVIDIA Jetson) for safety-critical control loops and cloud/edge servers for non-critical tasks like learning and interfaces. A crucial driver is the open-source ecosystem—models like GR00T and OpenVLA allow startups to build upon pre-trained brains and fine-tune them with their own data, accelerating development. Despite progress, current systems struggle with recovery from errors, sample inefficiency, and long-horizon tasks. This has spurred the rise of **World Models**—neural networks that predict the consequences of actions. By simulating possible futures before acting (like NVIDIA Cosmos or Meta V-JEPA), robots can plan, recover, and generalize better. This represents the next frontier: shifting intelligence from learned reactions to an internal model of physics and cause-and-effect. The field is rapidly evolving. While not yet at its "ChatGPT moment," the convergence of cheaper hardware, scalable simulation, and world models points toward robots that are increasingly capable, adaptive, and useful. The question is shifting from "what can robots do?" to "what *should* they do?"

marsbit8h ago

From Code to Cognition: A Ten-Thousand-Word Guide to the Evolution of the Robot Brain

marsbit8h ago

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片