Crypto Policy Turning Point: Blockchain Devs Could Gain Legal Shield

bitcoinistPubblicato 2026-02-28Pubblicato ultima volta 2026-02-28

Introduzione

A new bipartisan bill, the Promoting Innovation in Blockchain Development Act, has been introduced in the US House of Representatives to protect blockchain developers from being prosecuted as unlicensed money transmitters. The legislation (targeting Section 1960) would narrow the legal definition to apply only to those who actually hold or control users' digital assets—not developers who write code, maintain networks, or build platforms without handling funds. The push follows high-profile prosecutions, including the conviction of Tornado Cash developer Roman Storm and guilty pleas from Samourai Wallet founders. Crypto advocacy groups support the bill, arguing it will encourage U.S.-based innovation and protect neutral technology builders from being treated as financial intermediaries. A similar Senate bill was also introduced earlier this year.

Building software has never been against the law. But in recent years, some crypto and blockchain developers have found themselves facing federal criminal charges simply for creating tools that others used to move cryptocurrency — even when those developers never held a single dollar of anyone’s money.

A new bill introduced in the US House of Representatives is aimed squarely at closing that gap.

A Bipartisan Push To Protect Developers

Representatives Scott Fitzgerald, Ben Cline, and Zoe Lofgren announced Thursday that they are sponsoring the Promoting Innovation in Blockchain Development Act.

The legislation targets a specific section of federal law — Section 1960 — which currently prohibits the operation of unlicensed money transmitting businesses.

The bill would tighten the definition so that the law applies only to those who actually hold or control other people’s digital assets. Developers who write code, maintain networks, or build platforms without ever touching user funds would be explicitly excluded from that category.

The bill drew quick support from two prominent crypto advocacy groups. The Blockchain Association called it a critical step toward encouraging more US-based developers to build at home rather than abroad.

The DeFi Education Fund (DEF) went further, saying the legislation would allow software builders to “construct neutral technology here at home without worrying about being criminally prosecuted as if they are a financial intermediary.”

Both organizations have long argued that existing law has been applied too broadly against developers who had no direct role in how their tools were used.

Real Prosecutions Behind The Push For Change

The urgency behind this bill is not theoretical. Reports say the cases of Tornado Cash developer Roman Storm and the founders of Samourai Wallet have become rallying points for the crypto developer community.

Storm was convicted in August 2025 on charges of running an unlicensed money transmitting business — a verdict that sent shockwaves through the industry.

Samourai Wallet co-founders Keonne Rodriguez and Will Lonergan Hill pleaded guilty to similar charges and were later handed prison sentences of five and four years respectively.

BTCUSD now trading at $65,784. Chart: TradingView

In both cases, the developers built tools used by others to transfer funds, but did not themselves hold or manage those assets.

Storm had yet to be sentenced as of Thursday and still faces unresolved charges tied to two separate counts.

Whether the new legislation, if it becomes law, would have any bearing on cases already filed remains an open question. The bill appears to be written with future prosecutions in mind rather than those already underway.

The Senate Is Already Working On Its Own Version

The House bill does not exist in isolation. Reports say US Senators Cynthia Lummis and Ron Wyden introduced their own developer protection measure in January — the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act — which takes a similar position: that writing code or keeping a network running does not make someone a money transmitter under federal law.

Featured image from Unsplash, chart from TradingView

Domande pertinenti

QWhat is the main purpose of the Promoting Innovation in Blockchain Development Act introduced in the US House of Representatives?

AThe main purpose of the Promoting Innovation in Blockchain Development Act is to amend federal law to explicitly exclude blockchain developers who write code, maintain networks, or build platforms without holding or controlling user funds from being classified as unlicensed money transmitting businesses.

QWhich specific section of federal law does the new bill target for amendment?

AThe bill targets Section 1960 of federal law, which currently prohibits the operation of unlicensed money transmitting businesses.

QName two real-world cases that have become rallying points for the crypto developer community and highlight the urgency for this legislation.

AThe cases of Tornado Cash developer Roman Storm, who was convicted, and the founders of Samourai Wallet, Keonne Rodriguez and Will Lonergan Hill, who pleaded guilty, are the rallying points that highlight the urgency for this legislation.

QWhich two US Senators introduced a similar developer protection measure called the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act?

AUS Senators Cynthia Lummis and Ron Wyden introduced the similar Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act.

QAccording to the DeFi Education Fund (DEF), what will this legislation allow software builders to do?

AAccording to the DeFi Education Fund (DEF), this legislation will allow software builders to 'construct neutral technology here at home without worrying about being criminally prosecuted as if they are a financial intermediary.'

Letture associate

You Bet on the News, the Pros Read the Rules: The True Cognitive Gap in Losing Money on Polymarket

The article explains that the key to profiting on Polymarket, a prediction market platform, lies not just predicting real-world events correctly, but in meticulously understanding the specific rules that govern how each market will be resolved. It illustrates this with examples, such as a market on Venezuela's 2026 leader, where the official rules defining "officially holds" the office overruled the intuitive answer of who was in practical control. Other examples include debates over the definition of a "token" or what constitutes an "agreement." The core argument is that a "reality vs. rules" gap creates pricing discrepancies that savvy traders ("车头" or "whales") exploit. The platform has a formal dispute resolution process managed by UMA token holders to settle ambiguous outcomes. This process involves proposal submission, a challenge window, a discussion period, and a final vote. However, the article highlights a critical flaw in this system compared to a traditional court: the lack of separation between the arbiters (UMA voters) and the interested parties (traders with financial stakes in the outcome). This conflict of interest undermines the discussion phase, leads to herd mentality, and results in opaque final decisions without explanatory rulings. Consequently, the system lacks a body of precedent, making it difficult for users to learn from past disputes. The ultimate takeaway is that success on Polymarket requires a lawyer-like scrutiny of the rules to identify and capitalize on the cognitive gap between how events appear and how they are contractually defined for settlement.

marsbit1 h fa

You Bet on the News, the Pros Read the Rules: The True Cognitive Gap in Losing Money on Polymarket

marsbit1 h fa

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片