US Senate Judiciary Committee Pushes To Strip Developer Safeguards From Crypto Bill

TheNewsCryptoPublicado a 2026-01-19Actualizado a 2026-01-19

Resumen

Senior members of the US Senate Judiciary Committee, including Chairman Chuck Grassley and ranking member Dick Durbin, have urged the Senate Banking Committee to remove developer safeguards from a proposed cryptocurrency market structure bill. They argue that provisions like the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act (BRCA)—which exempts non-custodial software developers from money transmission laws—could create enforcement gaps in combating money laundering and unlicensed financial activities. The Judiciary Committee claims jurisdiction over such criminal statutes and emphasizes that it was not consulted during the drafting process. The dispute reflects broader legislative challenges in crypto regulation, including stablecoin oversight and inter-agency coordination.

Senior members of the US Senate Judiciary Committee have called upon the Senate Banking Committee to exploit the so-called developer protections proposed in the current version of the cryptocurrency market structure bill, citing that the bill may obstruct the enforcement of federal law relating to money transmission.

The letter was written to members of the Senate Banking Committee and was signed by GOP Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and ranking member Dick Durbin, D-Illinois, where the two explain that some parts of the bill, in particular, the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act, or BRCA, would create “significant gaps in enforcement for decentralized platforms if not fixed.”

So, under this rule, software developers and providers who fail to exercise power over users’ funds will not be covered by national or state money transmission laws. Advocates of this rule believe that this rule protects software developers of non-custodial software from being held responsible for how their software is used by its users.

Senate Judiciary Committee leaders Chuck Grassley and Dick Durbin said the provisions on developer safeguards were left out of the larger crypto market structure bill because issues such as criminal law, unlicensed money transmission, and anti-money laundering enforcement are within the purview of the Judiciary Committee. The senators said that the committee was never consulted in advance about the inclusion of those provisions and underscored that any changes that impact federal criminal statutes have to go through the Judiciary Committee process.

Legislative Processes and Larger Context

Pro-developer protection lawmakers have argued that software developers who do not custody or control users’ funds should not be considered money transmitters, as is reflected in the BRCA introduced by Senators like Cynthia Lummis and Ron Wyden, which seeks to clarify that non-custodial developers are not subject to money transmission laws.

But the Senate Judiciary Committee’s leadership had concerns that including similar protections within the crypto market structure bill would muddle how the concept would be enforced and confuse how current criminal statutes—such as those dealing with money laundering and unlawful financial activity—are applied. They said it’s in their committee’s jurisdiction and should be pursued through separate legislation.

The market structure bill has also encountered some procedural issues and legislative challenges as various parties have expressed their disquiet regarding its breadth and structure. The current negotiations also encompass some outstanding issues regarding stablecoin regulation and sharing regulatory control between federal regulatory bodies such as the SEC and CFTC.

Such tendencies are part of larger Congress debates in forming digital asset legislation structure in matters such as the responsibility of developers, enforcement powers, and coordination in regulations, still under consideration by lawmakers as they continue to shape the framework of oversight of the US crypto industry.

Highlighted Crypto News:

Crypto Analyst Points to the Bloody Monday Factor After Crypto Market Slips

Preguntas relacionadas

QWhat is the main concern raised by the US Senate Judiciary Committee regarding the cryptocurrency market structure bill?

AThe main concern is that the bill's developer protections, particularly the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act (BRCA), may create significant gaps in enforcement for decentralized platforms and obstruct the enforcement of federal laws related to money transmission, money laundering, and unlicensed money transmission.

QWhich senators signed the letter to the Senate Banking Committee opposing the developer safeguards in the crypto bill?

AThe letter was signed by GOP Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and ranking member Dick Durbin (D-Illinois) of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

QWhat does the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act (BRCA) propose for non-custodial software developers?

AThe BRCA proposes that software developers and providers who do not exercise control over users' funds should not be covered by national or state money transmission laws, protecting them from being held responsible for how their software is used.

QWhy did the Senate Judiciary Committee claim jurisdiction over the developer safeguards provisions?

AThe committee claimed jurisdiction because issues such as criminal law, unlicensed money transmission, and anti-money laundering enforcement fall within its purview, and it was not consulted in advance about including these provisions in the bill.

QWhat broader legislative challenges is the crypto market structure bill facing besides the developer safeguards issue?

AThe bill is facing procedural issues and challenges related to its breadth and structure, including ongoing negotiations on stablecoin regulation and the sharing of regulatory control between federal agencies like the SEC and CFTC.

Lecturas Relacionadas

Hands-on with Hunyuan Hy3 Preview: Tencent's AI, Finally Competitive?

Tencent's Hunyuan AI team has released its latest language model, Hy3 preview, marking a significant step forward for the company's AI capabilities. With 295B total parameters and support for 256K context length, the model employs a mixture-of-experts architecture. It shows improvements in complex logic, instruction following, contextual learning, code generation, and agent task execution. In testing, Hy3 preview demonstrated strong performance in multi-step logical reasoning but showed occasional instability in identifying traps in trick questions. It performed well in extracting key information from disordered meeting transcripts and accurately followed new linguistic rules. As an AI agent, it successfully built functional applications like a Snake game and generated data analysis dashboards, though it sometimes fell short in fully completing complex open-ended tasks. In natural language use, it produced coherent and stylistically appropriate narratives with reduced “AI-like” tone. Priced competitively, Hy3 preview is already integrated into Tencent’s key products, including Tencent Cloud and WorkBuddy. While not leading in every benchmark, it represents a solid, practical model that signals Tencent’s renewed momentum in AI development.

marsbitHace 25 min(s)

Hands-on with Hunyuan Hy3 Preview: Tencent's AI, Finally Competitive?

marsbitHace 25 min(s)

From Theft to Re-entry: How Was $292 Million "Laundered"?

A sophisticated crypto laundering operation was executed following the $292 million hack of Kelp DAO on April 18. The attack, attributed to the North Korean Lazarus group, began with anonymous infrastructure preparation using Tornado Cash to fund wallets untraceably. The hacker exploited a vulnerability in Kelp’s cross-chain bridge, stealing 116,500 rsETH. To avoid crashing the market, the attacker used Aave and Compound as laundering tools—depositing the stolen rsETH as collateral to borrow $190 million in clean, liquid ETH. This move triggered a bank run on Aave, causing an $8 billion drop in TVL. After consolidating funds, the attacker fragmented them across hundreds of wallets to evade detection. A major breakpoint was THORChain, where over $460 million in volume—30 times its usual activity—was processed in 24 hours, converting ETH into Bitcoin. This shift to Bitcoin’s UTXO model exponentially increased tracing complexity by shattering funds into countless untraceable fragments. The final destination was Tron-based USDT, the primary channel for illicit crypto flows. From there, funds were cashed out via OTC brokers in China and Southeast Asia, using unlicensed underground banks and UnionPay networks outside Western sanctions scope. Ultimately, the laundered money supports North Korea’s weapons programs, which rely heavily on crypto hacking for foreign currency. The incident underscores structural challenges in DeFi: its openness, composability, and lack of central control make such laundering not just possible, but inherently difficult to prevent.

marsbitHace 30 min(s)

From Theft to Re-entry: How Was $292 Million "Laundered"?

marsbitHace 30 min(s)

Behind DeepSeek V4's Stunning Debut: Silicon Valley Is 'Building Walls,' China Is 'Paving Roads'

China's AI landscape is witnessing a strategic divergence from Silicon Valley’s closed-source competition to a collaborative open-source ecosystem. On April 24, DeepSeek released V4, a top-ranked open-source model on Hugging Face, featuring breakthroughs like million-token context length with minimal KV cache and native support for domestic chips like Huawei’s Ascend. Similarly, Kimi’s K2.6, released days earlier, also adopted open-source principles. Unlike U.S. giants such as OpenAI and Anthropic—locked in revenue disputes and tactical product clashes—Chinese firms embrace shared innovation. DeepSeek and Kimi openly build on each other’s advances, like the MLA architecture and Muon optimizer, avoiding redundant R&D and driving down costs. DeepSeek V4 focused on pushing base model capabilities, while Kimi specialized in Agent-based applications. Although U.S. firms lead in revenue and valuation, China’s open-source models achieve comparable performance at a fraction of the cost (e.g., DeepSeek V3 trained for $5.58M vs. GPT-5’s $500M+). With token usage growing exponentially, China’s collaborative model promises scalable, affordable AI built on domestic hardware, shaping a more accessible path to AGI.

marsbitHace 40 min(s)

Behind DeepSeek V4's Stunning Debut: Silicon Valley Is 'Building Walls,' China Is 'Paving Roads'

marsbitHace 40 min(s)

OpenClaw vs. Hermes: Which One Is Right for You?

Two leading AI agent projects, OpenClaw and Hermes, represent a fundamental divergence in design philosophy rather than just a feature competition. OpenClaw, a GitHub phenomenon, prioritizes user control and customization, offering a powerful, flexible platform for building and orchestrating agents. It boasts a massive ecosystem with over 44,000 skills, extensive model flexibility (supporting Anthropic, OpenAI, and others), and deep integrations across multiple messaging platforms. In contrast, Hermes Agent, developed by Nous Research, champions automation and efficiency. It is designed for lower cost and a lower barrier to entry, learning and improving automatically from user workflows. It runs tasks in isolated environments for security and offers significantly lower token costs out-of-the-box. The choice between them mirrors historical tech divides like Windows vs. Mac. OpenClaw is for users who want maximum control, customization, and don't mind a complex setup. Hermes is the smarter default for those seeking an affordable, easy-to-use agent that learns autonomously. The real competition is not about which is better, but which philosophy—a programmable personal OS or a self-evolving work proxy—better suits the user's needs for control, cost, and ease of use.

marsbitHace 1 hora(s)

OpenClaw vs. Hermes: Which One Is Right for You?

marsbitHace 1 hora(s)

Google and Amazon Simultaneously Invest Heavily in a Competitor: The Most Absurd Business Logic of the AI Era Is Becoming Reality

In a span of four days, Amazon announced an additional $25 billion investment, and Google pledged up to $40 billion—both direct competitors pouring over $65 billion into the same AI startup, Anthropic. Rather than a typical venture capital move, this signals the latest escalation in the cloud wars. The core of the deal is not equity but compute pre-orders: Anthropic must spend the majority of these funds on AWS and Google Cloud services and chips, effectively locking in massive future compute consumption. This reflects a shift in cloud market dynamics—enterprises now choose cloud providers based on which hosts the best AI models, not just price or stability. With OpenAI deeply tied to Microsoft, Anthropic’s Claude has become the only viable strategic asset for Google and Amazon to remain competitive. Anthropic’s annualized revenue has surged to $30 billion, and it is expanding into verticals like biotech, positioning itself as a cross-industry AI infrastructure layer. However, this funding comes with constraints: Anthropic’s independence is challenged as it balances two rival investors, its safety-first narrative faces pressure from regulatory scrutiny, and its path to IPO introduces new financial pressures. Globally, this accelerates a "tri-polar" closed-loop structure in AI infrastructure, with Microsoft-OpenAI, Google-Anthropic, and Amazon-Anthropic forming exclusive model-cloud alliances. In contrast, China’s landscape differs—investments like Alibaba and Tencent backing open-source model firm DeepSeek reflect a more decoupled approach, though closed-source models from major cloud providers still dominate. The $65 billion bet is ultimately about securing a seat at the table in an AI-defined future—where missing the model layer means losing the cloud war.

marsbitHace 6 hora(s)

Google and Amazon Simultaneously Invest Heavily in a Competitor: The Most Absurd Business Logic of the AI Era Is Becoming Reality

marsbitHace 6 hora(s)

Trading

Spot

Futuros