Senate Judiciary flags DeFi oversight ‘gaps’ in U.S. crypto bill

ambcryptoPublicado a 2026-01-17Actualizado a 2026-01-17

Resumen

The Senate Judiciary Committee, led by Chuck Grassley and Dick Durbin, has raised concerns about the CLARITY Act, a broader crypto market structure bill. They warn that exemptions in the bill could allow DeFi software developers to avoid financial licensing requirements for money-transmitting businesses, potentially weakening federal criminal code enforcement tools used by the Department of Justice. The Judiciary Committee argues it was not consulted on these changes and urged the Senate Banking Committee to reject the exemptions, citing risks such as enabling money laundering. In response, the Banking Committee defended the protections for developers, stating the provisions fall under its jurisdiction and aim to prevent unfair prosecution of those without control over funds or transactions. The bill faces further uncertainty after Coinbase withdrew support, and the White House reportedly warned the exchange to return to negotiations or risk losing backing. The future of the legislation remains unclear.

The broader crypto market structure, the CLARITY Act, has hit another snag, this time from the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The Committee’s Chair, Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), and ranking member, Dick Durbin (D-Illinois), raised an alarm about a section of the bill.

They pointed out that it would exempt some DeFi software developers from financial licensing requirements for money-transmitting businesses (MTBs).

In a letter to Senate Banking Committee Chair Tim Scott and Ranking Member Elizabeth Warren (D‐Massachusetts), Senators Grassley and Durbin emphasized that they had not been consulted. They argued that the mandate nonetheless falls within their jurisdiction.

The Senate Judiciary Committee went further, warning that the bill’s exemptions “weaken” the federal criminal code. They stressed that this code is a critical enforcement tool for the Department of Justice in combating serious crime.

“By providing a sweeping exemption to non-controlling developers or providers from critical portions of Titles 18 and 31.”

The letter further stated,

“The Senate Judiciary Committee, which has jurisdiction over Title 18, was not consulted or given the opportunity to meaningfully review the proposed changes in advance.”

The senators warned that the proposed exemptions could allow founders, such as Roman Storm of the crypto mixer Tornado Cash, to walk free, even after facilitating the laundering of large‐scale criminal proceeds.

As a consequence, the Judiciary Committee urged its banking colleagues to reject these exemptions. They emphasized the need to close potential DeFi oversight “gaps” in the bill to ensure accountability.

Senate Banking defends developer protections

For perspective, Storm was convicted of conspiracy to operate an unlicensed MTBs despite not having custody of funds or discretionary control over transactions.

This section of the bill, known as the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act (BRCA), was added to the broader crypto legislation.

Its purpose is to protect software developers from what lawmakers describe as “unfair” prosecution. Specifically, it seeks to shield them from liability under the Bank Secrecy Act and criminal law.

Even pro-crypto Cynthia Lummis backed these exemptions, provided the platforms don’t control the funds or transactions.

Source: X/Cynthia Lummis

In a response to Senate Judiciary claims, Tim Scott’s spokesperson, Jeff Naft, told Politico that BRCA falls within the Banking Committee and added,

“The Chairman (Scott) remains committed to protecting software developers while ensuring that law enforcement has the necessary tools to prosecute actual illegal money transmission operations.”

Uncertainty rocks crypto bill

The bill’s progress hit a roadblock after Coinbase withdrew support, citing ‘too many issues’ including a ban on stablecoin rewards.

Coinbase’s CEO Brian Armstrong’s “no bill, better than bad bill” stance has left the industry divided, intensifying uncertainty on the bill’s way forward.

That said, White House was reportedly unhappy with Coinbase’s move, calling it a ‘rug-pull’ against the entire industry.

According to reporter Eleanor Terrett, citing an insider, the White House will also pull support if Coinbase does come back to negotiations, adding that,

“This is President Trump’s bill at the end of the day, not Brian Armstrong’s”

It remains to be seen whether the bill will regain momentum in the coming days.


Final Thoughts

  • Senate Judiciary pressed for rejection of DeFi software developer exemptions to strengthen DoJ oversight in the space.
  • The White House reportedly warned Coinbase to return to negotiations or risk losing support.

Preguntas relacionadas

QWhat specific concern did the Senate Judiciary Committee raise about the CLARITY Act?

AThe Senate Judiciary Committee raised concerns that the bill would exempt some DeFi software developers from financial licensing requirements for money-transmitting businesses, which they argue would 'weaken' the federal criminal code and create oversight gaps.

QWhich specific legal titles did the Judiciary Committee argue were being weakened by the proposed exemptions?

AThe Judiciary Committee argued that the exemptions would weaken critical portions of Titles 18 and 31 of the U.S. Code, which fall under their jurisdiction.

QWhat is the purpose of the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act (BRCA) section added to the broader crypto bill?

AThe Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act (BRCA) aims to protect software developers from what lawmakers describe as 'unfair' prosecution by shielding them from liability under the Bank Secrecy Act and criminal law, provided they don't control funds or transactions.

QWhy did Coinbase withdraw its support for the crypto bill?

ACoinbase withdrew its support for the bill citing 'too many issues,' including a proposed ban on stablecoin rewards.

QWhat was the White House's reported reaction to Coinbase's withdrawal from the bill negotiations?

AThe White House was reportedly unhappy with Coinbase's move, calling it a 'rug-pull' against the entire industry, and warned that they would also pull support if Coinbase did not return to negotiations.

Lecturas Relacionadas

GPT-5.6 Countdown: Abandon the Illusion of a Single API, Computational Iteration Can't Outpace a Single Page of Compliance

In mid-June, three seemingly independent industry events—the compliance-driven throttling of Fable 5, the open-sourcing of GLM-5.2, and the leaked release timeline for GPT-5.6—are pushing the global AI industry toward a watershed moment. These shifts signal a fundamental restructuring of the industry's underlying logic. First, **"usability" has substantially overtaken "advanced capabilities"** as the primary weight, pushing the global large language model (LLM) supply chain into a "dual-track" phase of controlled closed-source and local open-source coexistence. Second, **the competitive moats of closed-source giants are shifting**. Their technical focus is moving from "language intelligence" toward "spatial intelligence (world models)"—a domain heavily reliant on computing power. Third, faced with常态化 transnational compliance risks, **a "model-agnostic" decoupled design has become a survival necessity for application-layer developers to maintain business continuity.** The article details how Anthropic's Fable 5, despite its advanced engineering feats, was restricted for non-U.S. citizens within 72 hours of launch, highlighting how geopolitical compliance can instantly limit even the most advanced models. In response, the open-source camp, exemplified by Zhipu AI's MIT-licensed GLM-5.2, is gaining market share by offering stable performance improvements and significant cost advantages (up to 70% savings for enterprises), while achieving full adaptation with domestic semiconductor platforms. Meanwhile, closed-source leaders like OpenAI are pivoting. The anticipated GPT-5.6 reportedly shifts focus from language to spatial intelligence and world models, aiming to rebuild a generational gap in areas like 3D understanding, simulation, and industrial design that demand immense compute. The core conclusion is that the LLM supply chain's logic has changed. Enterprises must now evaluate infrastructure based on a composite of technical performance and policy compliance. For developers, complete reliance on a single closed-source API poses unacceptable risk. Implementing a truly model-agnostic architecture—enabling swift switches to compliant, locally deployable open-source alternatives—is no longer just good practice but a fundamental baseline for business continuity.

marsbitHace 51 min(s)

GPT-5.6 Countdown: Abandon the Illusion of a Single API, Computational Iteration Can't Outpace a Single Page of Compliance

marsbitHace 51 min(s)

Is the 'Token Subsidy War' Among AI Giants Almost Over?

The article discusses the ongoing "token subsidy war" among AI giants like OpenAI and Anthropic, questioning whether it's nearing its end. It reveals that current AI subscription prices are heavily subsidized, with some plans offering tokens at up to 70 times the actual cost to attract and retain heavy users, especially developers and enterprises. This strategy mirrors past internet-era subsidy battles, but with a key difference: AI tokens lack "lock-in" effects. Unlike ride-hailing or food delivery apps, users can easily switch between AI providers as APIs become standardized, making it difficult for companies to raise prices post-subsidy. The piece highlights a structural asymmetry in the competition. Giants like Google, with massive advertising revenue, can afford to subsidize tokens indefinitely, akin to using "tokens as a weapon." In contrast, venture-backed companies like OpenAI and Anthropic face pressure to become profitable, especially as they approach IPO. The article cites Google Ventures founder Bill Maris, who suggests Google could slash token prices by 80%, putting immense pressure on competitors. Two potential endgames are presented: the "internet service" model (subsidize, monopolize, then raise prices) and the "utility" model (tokens become a standardized, low-margin commodity like electricity). Given the low switching costs, the latter seems more likely. The competition may not have a single winner but could instead accelerate AI's evolution into a foundational, infrastructure-level technology, akin to a public utility. For now, users continue to benefit from heavily subsidized token costs.

marsbitHace 1 hora(s)

Is the 'Token Subsidy War' Among AI Giants Almost Over?

marsbitHace 1 hora(s)

Beyond the Stadium: The Profitable Games Surrounding the World Cup

"Beyond the Pitch: The Profit Game Around the World Cup" The FIFA World Cup transcends being a sporting spectacle, evolving into a massive global arena for speculation and profit-seeking. The 2026 tournament has amplified this dynamic, creating a multi-layered ecosystem of financial opportunism alongside the football. **Prediction markets** have surged into the mainstream. Platforms like Polymarket and Kalshi saw trading volumes for World Cup contracts soar, attracting new users with their financial trading model and high-profile, chain-based wealth stories that overshadow traditional sports betting in terms of growth and narrative. However, **traditional sportsbooks** remain the dominant force, leveraging established user habits, legal markets, and comprehensive product offerings to handle the vast majority of speculative wagers, with projections suggesting record-breaking betting volumes. Capital markets also react. **"Concept stocks"** in countries like South Korea and Japan experience volatile price swings based on team performance and anticipated fan spending on items like chicken, beer, and viewing parties, effectively becoming a stock market reflecting fan sentiment. The **ticket resale market** has become a sophisticated arena for arbitrage. Prices fluctuate wildly based on team draws and star power, with sellers sometimes listing tickets they don't yet own in a practice akin to short-selling, while FIFA's own "Right to Buy" tokens add another layer of speculative trading. **Collectibles and merchandise** offer another avenue. Panini sticker albums, with their inherent scarcity and nostalgic value, can become high-value collectibles. Limited-edition or locally themed jerseys command significant premiums on secondary markets, and even counterfeit vendors profit from fans' desire for affordable match-day identity. The **cryptocurrency** space has seen a frenzy of speculative, unauthorized World Cup-themed meme coins on chains like Solana. These tokens, often exploiting team names and player imagery, experience extreme pump-and-dump cycles, creating stories of massive gains for a few early entrants and steep losses for many others. Finally, an entire industry thrives on **providing information and tools** to other speculators. Developers create platforms like SeatSidekick to track ticket inventory and prices, while paid Telegram groups and subscriptions sell betting tips and predictions, monetizing the widespread desire for an informational edge. In essence, the World Cup has become a compressed, global laboratory for speculation. While the games determine champions on the field, a parallel, complex network of financial transactions—spanning prediction contracts, bets, stocks, tickets, collectibles, crypto, and information services—settles its own scores in the global market.

marsbitHace 1 hora(s)

Beyond the Stadium: The Profitable Games Surrounding the World Cup

marsbitHace 1 hora(s)

How Does Codex Use a Computer? Three Entry Points and Permission Boundaries

This article explains the three primary methods for Codex to interact with a computer, each with distinct use cases, permission boundaries, and trust levels. **1. Computer Use:** This offers the broadest access, allowing Codex to visually control and interact with the graphical user interface of authorized macOS/Windows apps, system settings, and even iOS simulators. It's ideal for tasks lacking APIs or structured tools, such as operating legacy software or multi-app workflows. However, it's the slowest method and has the widest permission scope, requiring careful supervision for sensitive actions. **2. Chrome Extension:** This grants Codex access to the user's logged-in Chrome browser state, including cookies, profiles, and open tabs. It's best for tasks requiring user identity across websites like Gmail, LinkedIn, Salesforce, or internal dashboards. Its key advantage is multi-tab control for complex workflows. While more powerful for browser-based tasks than Computer Use, it carries higher sensitivity as actions are performed under the user's identity. **3. In-App Browser:** This is a browser isolated within the Codex thread, separate from the user's personal browsing data. It excels in web development and debugging scenarios—previewing local servers, testing responsive layouts, or annotating designs directly on the page. Its isolation is a strength for development but a limitation for tasks requiring login sessions. The core principle is to choose the narrowest, safest, and most structured interface for the task. Use plugins or MCPs first, resort to visual control (Computer Use) only for GUI-dependent tasks, employ the Chrome extension for identity-reliant browser work, and prefer the In-App Browser for isolated development. **Appshots** are clarified as a fourth, complementary tool for *inputting* context—capturing a screenshot of a window to point Codex to something—rather than a method for Codex to *act*. Together, this layered approach highlights a key to AI agent productization: not granting unlimited permissions, but constraining them within clear boundaries for specific tasks while preserving user oversight.

marsbitHace 3 hora(s)

How Does Codex Use a Computer? Three Entry Points and Permission Boundaries

marsbitHace 3 hora(s)

Trading

Spot
Futuros
活动图片