U.S. Lawmakers Push to Clarify Crypto Developer Liability Under Federal Law

TheNewsCryptoPublished on 2026-01-13Last updated on 2026-01-13

Abstract

U.S. Senators Cynthia Lummis and Ron Wyden have reintroduced the bipartisan Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act to protect cryptocurrency developers from being wrongly classified as financial institutions or money transmitters. The bill clarifies that liability should be based on control of user funds, not merely writing or maintaining code. This addresses growing legal uncertainty and fear among developers, especially following recent Department of Justice cases involving privacy tools. Lawmakers argue that misapplying financial regulations to developers who don’t handle funds is unfair, stifles innovation, and could drive talent overseas. The legislation aims to safeguard open-source development and prevent overreach by ensuring only entities with actual control over assets face strict regulatory obligations.

Two U.S. senators, Cynthia Lummis and Ron Wyden, have reintroduced a bipartisan bill called the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act to protect cryptocurrency developers from being wrongly treated as banks or financial institutions under U.S. law.

This bill can help resolve the issue between U.S. law and cryptocurrency developers. Right now, the law is unclear about who counts and handles the money of the users. Because of this, some developers who only write the code and never handle the users’ money, or don’t even control wallets, are being treated as the money-handling company and being charged. This risk has grown after the recent DOJ cases involving privacy and self-custody tools, and many developers are in fear of building crypto tools.

Control, Not Code: Lawmakers Push to Shield Crypto Developers From Liability

The bill says that control matters a lot, not the code. If you only write or maintain software and you cannot access or control the funds, and you don’t have legal authority over assets, then you should not be treated as a money transmitter. Only companies that actually control funds should follow strict money laws.

The bill was urgently reintroduced because the issue became very serious. Developers have already been criminally charged, and this fear for the developers could push them out of the U.S., thus bringing slow innovations and breaking open-source development. So the lawmakers have realized this is dangerous and unfair, and they want to fix the rule before more damage happens.

Both Lummis and Wyden have played a major role in bringing this bill urgently. Lummis says that there is no use in regulating the developers like banks when they never handle the users’ money. Wyden warns that forcing developers to follow the exchange-level rules is technologically ignorant and harmful to privacy. Both argue that liability should follow actual control of funds.

This law helps to keep the crypto tools open and innovation alive, with developers safe. If the developers are afraid of building the tools, fewer wallets will be built, and there will be fewer innovations and more control by the big companies.

Highlighted Crypto News:

‌Red Candles Stack Up for OFFICIAL TRUMP (TRUMP): Will Sellers Tighten Their Grip?

TagsCryptoSenator

Related Questions

QWhat is the name of the bipartisan bill reintroduced by Senators Lummis and Wyden?

AThe Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act.

QAccording to the bill, what is the key factor that should determine if someone is treated as a money transmitter?

AActual control over the funds, not just writing or maintaining the code.

QWhy was the bill urgently reintroduced, according to the article?

ABecause developers have already been criminally charged, creating fear that could push innovation out of the U.S. and harm open-source development.

QWhat negative consequence could occur if developers are afraid to build crypto tools?

AFewer wallets and innovations would be built, leading to more control by big companies.

QWhich U.S. government agency's recent cases were mentioned as increasing the risk for developers?

AThe Department of Justice (DOJ).

Related Reads

Lowering Expectations for BTC's Next Bull Market

The author, Alex Xu, explains his decision to significantly reduce his Bitcoin holdings (from full to ~30% of his portfolio) during the current bull cycle, citing a lowered long-term outlook for BTC's price appreciation in the next cycle. He outlines six key reasons for this reduced expectation: 1. **Diminished Growth Drivers:** The narrative of exponential user adoption has largely played out with institutional ETF adoption. The next major growth phase—adoption by sovereign national reserves or central banks—seems unlikely in the near future. 2. **Personal Opportunity Cost:** More attractive investment opportunities have emerged in other assets, such as undervalued companies. 3. **Industry-Wide Contraction:** The broader crypto industry is struggling, with most Web3 business models (SocialFi, GameFi, DePIN) failing. This overall萧条 (depression) reduces the fundamental demand and consensus for Bitcoin. 4. **Strain on Major Buyer:** MicroStrategy, a major corporate buyer of BTC, faces rising financing expenses for its debt, which could slow its purchasing rate and create significant marginal pressure on the market. 5. **Increased Competition from Gold:** The emergence of "tokenized gold" has closed the functional gap (portability, divisibility) between physical gold and Bitcoin, offering a strong competitor in the non-sovereign store-of-value space. 6. **Security Budget Concerns:** The block reward halving continues to exacerbate the long-standing issue of funding Bitcoin's network security, with new fee source explorations like Ordinals and L2s largely failing. The author's decision to hold a significant (though reduced) position reflects a cautious, not bearish, outlook. He remains open to increasing his exposure if the fundamental reasons for his skepticism change or if new positive catalysts emerge.

marsbit7m ago

Lowering Expectations for BTC's Next Bull Market

marsbit7m ago

Prediction Markets Cannot Exist Without Insider Trading, But Insider Trading Is Killing Them

Prediction markets face a fundamental contradiction: they rely on insider trading to generate accurate prices, yet this same activity erodes public trust and threatens their survival. Recent scandals, such as a U.S. special forces member making $400,000 on Polymarket using classified information about a raid, highlight the severity of the issue. While platforms like Polymarket and Kalshi market themselves as venues where "everyone is an expert" and encourage informed trading, they also enforce policies against illegal insider trading. The core dilemma is that these markets depend on informed insiders for price efficiency but require uninformed retail participants to provide liquidity. If insider trading is too rampant, retail traders leave, perceiving the market as unfair. If restrictions are too strict, valuable information flow dries up, reducing the market’s predictive utility. The challenge is finding a balance that maintains both accuracy and perceived fairness—a task complicated by regulatory pressures and recurring scandals.

marsbit13m ago

Prediction Markets Cannot Exist Without Insider Trading, But Insider Trading Is Killing Them

marsbit13m ago

Can Iran 'Control' the Strait of Hormuz?

Iran has announced a comprehensive plan to assert control over the strategic Strait of Hormuz, a critical global oil shipping chokepoint. The proposed measures include requiring all vessels to obtain Iranian permission for passage, imposing fees for security, environmental protection, and navigation management—preferably paid in Iranian rials—and absolutely banning Israeli ships. Vessels from countries deemed hostile by Iran’s top security bodies may also be barred. Analysts suggest Iran’s motives are multifaceted: increasing pressure on the U.S. and Israel by leveraging control over oil transit to influence global prices and inflation; creating a new revenue stream, potentially exceeding $7.7 billion annually, to counter Western sanctions and support postwar reconstruction; and using transit permissions as bargaining chips in future negotiations, notably with the U.S. However, the plan faces significant practical and diplomatic challenges. Enforcing comprehensive interception and fee collection in the busy waterway, patrolled by international military forces, would be difficult. The U.S. has already countering with a blockade of Iranian ports and threats to intercept any ship paying fees, potentially strangling Iran’s oil exports and fee revenue. Broad international opposition, led by European and Gulf states, and legal controversies further complicate implementation. The proposal may ultimately serve more as a negotiating tactic than a feasible policy, with its execution remaining highly uncertain.

marsbit1h ago

Can Iran 'Control' the Strait of Hormuz?

marsbit1h ago

Vertically Integrated Capital Aggregators: How Does Web3 Build an Impregnable Moat?

"Vertical Integration Capital Aggregators: How Web3 Builds Unbreachable Moats" explores how leading Web3 protocols create competitive advantages by vertically integrating multiple ecosystem components. Unlike Web2 aggregators that focus on user demand or supplier commoditization, successful Web3 entities like Hyperliquid aggregate capital, liquidity, users, and distribution into a unified financial ecosystem. This integration allows for efficient capital deployment—Hyperliquid generates $0.30 in fees per $1 of TVL annually, compared to Aave's $0.05—while creating a defensible moat that is difficult to replicate across six simultaneous fronts. However, this model comes with risks: DeFi loses $0.50 to hacks for every $1 earned, pushing protocols toward partial centralization and closed systems for security and scalability. The token serves as a shared incentive layer, aligning stakeholders and driving value through mechanisms like buybacks. The article concludes that vertical integration, not capital itself, is the true moat, and that the industry is evolving toward pragmatic, partially centralized models to ensure economic growth and sustainability.

marsbit1h ago

Vertically Integrated Capital Aggregators: How Does Web3 Build an Impregnable Moat?

marsbit1h ago

Falsely Accused by AI and Jailed for 160 Days: American Woman Steps into the Execution Zone

Summary: Angela Lipps, a woman from Tennessee, was wrongfully imprisoned for 160 days after a facial recognition AI incorrectly identified her as a suspect in a bank fraud case in North Dakota. Despite her insistence that she had never been to the state, she was arrested in July 2025 and held without bail. She spent 108 days in a local jail before being transferred to North Dakota in October, where she was eventually cleared after her lawyer provided bank records proving she was buying pizza in Tennessee at the time of the crime. Her ordeal highlights a growing issue with AI-driven law enforcement errors. Similar cases include Robert Williams, detained for 30 hours in 2020, and Chris Gatlin, jailed for 17 months based on flawed AI matches. Systems like Clearview AI, used by over 3,000 U.S. law enforcement agencies, often rely on low-quality images and can produce inaccurate results. Human oversight failures exacerbate the problem, as officers sometimes skip verification steps, leading to wrongful arrests. While AI has improved policing efficiency, its errors have serious consequences, emphasizing the need for stricter regulations and human accountability in its use.

marsbit2h ago

Falsely Accused by AI and Jailed for 160 Days: American Woman Steps into the Execution Zone

marsbit2h ago

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片