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

TheNewsCryptoPubblicato 2026-01-13Pubblicato ultima volta 2026-01-13

Introduzione

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

Domande pertinenti

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).

Letture associate

UNI Doubles in Two Months Against the Trend: A 5-Year-Overdue Value Realization

Amidst a generally stagnant crypto market in June and July, UNI, the governance token of Uniswap, saw a significant surge, nearly doubling in price from around $2.3 to $4.6. This rally represents a delayed but significant value reassessment, triggered by the practical implementation of its long-debated "fee switch" mechanism. The key turning point was the on-chain execution of the UNIfication proposal in December 2025. It activated a protocol fee on select pools, directed Unichain sequencer revenue (net of costs) to a communal treasury, executed a one-time burn of 100 million UNI, and established a system where all protocol revenue flows into a "TokenJar" contract. This treasury has a single exit: purchasing and permanently burning UNI via a "Firepit" contract. Initially, the market reacted tepidly as the generated revenue and corresponding burn rate were modest. The narrative shifted dramatically in July 2025 with two major developments. First, the launch of Robinhood Chain, tailored for tokenized stocks, rapidly became a primary source of volume and fees for Uniswap, at one point contributing nearly half of its weekly fees. Second, governance votes successfully expanded the fee mechanism to v4 pools and initiated a temperature check for fees on Robinhood Chain. The activation of v4 fees caused the protocol's daily revenue earmarked for UNI burns to nearly triple. The core of UNI's recent price action is the transition from a pure governance token to a cash-flow asset with a permanent, protocol-funded buyer. Its effectiveness is amplified by UNI's mature and widely distributed supply, with no major impending unlocks to dilute the impact of the buybacks. The sustainability of this rally now hinges on whether the transaction volume, particularly on Robinhood Chain, persists after its initial gas subsidies expire, determining if this is a genuine value realization or a subsidy-fueled spike.

marsbit1 h fa

UNI Doubles in Two Months Against the Trend: A 5-Year-Overdue Value Realization

marsbit1 h fa

Breaking: Google Earth Urgently Pulls Back Nano Banana 2 Image Generation Feature!

Google Earth's newly launched "Create image" feature, powered by the Nano Banana 2 AI image generation model, was abruptly withdrawn shortly after its release due to being "played" by users. The feature allowed users to generate and overlay AI-created visuals directly onto real-world satellite and 3D maps in Google Earth. The tool enabled creative applications like historical recreations (e.g., visualizing ancient Pompeii), generating informational graphics for landmarks, and envisioning architectural projects or futuristic cityscapes on real terrain. It operated under "geospatial grounding," meaning the AI respected the underlying geography, topography, and perspective of the chosen map view. The model also integrated with Gemini to retrieve relevant factual information. However, upon release, users quickly tested its limits. A prominent example involved reimagining Philadelphia's historic Independence Hall as a post-apocalyptic ruin overrun by "happy" zombies, evil clowns, and giant alien mechs. This highlighted both the feature's playful potential and its risks regarding the generation of inappropriate or misleading content on realistic maps, leading to its swift temporary removal. Google stated it would re-release the feature after implementing "enhanced guardrails." Analysts note this move strategically leverages Google's vast proprietary geospatial data, positioning its AI not just for artistic generation but for spatially accurate world visualization—a unique advantage in the competitive AI image generation landscape.

marsbit2 h fa

Breaking: Google Earth Urgently Pulls Back Nano Banana 2 Image Generation Feature!

marsbit2 h fa

Altman Admits: Overestimated AI Snatching Jobs! Huang Renxun: The Unemployment Narrative Is Completely Backwards

Sam Altman has revised his earlier predictions about AI rapidly replacing jobs, admitting he overestimated the speed at which AI would eliminate entry-level white-collar roles. Speaking on the "Invest Like the Best" podcast, he stated that people do not truly want an AI CEO, as accountability and human connection remain critical. He found that individuals prefer interacting with people who can be held responsible for decisions. Similarly, NVIDIA's Jensen Huang argued that the narrative of AI destroying jobs is misguided. He distinguishes between tasks and jobs, noting that while AI can automate specific tasks, entire jobs—encompassing communication, judgment, coordination, and accountability—are not eliminated. He cited examples like radiologists and software engineers, where demand for these roles has increased as AI handles repetitive tasks, allowing for business expansion and the creation of more positions. Data from a University of Maryland and LinkUp study supports this, showing that U.S. job postings for new graduates have actually risen, countering the fear of vanishing entry-level roles. However, a significant shift is occurring: the traditional entry-level tasks that help newcomers gain experience are being automated, making initial career access more challenging. The key insight is that as AI takes over standardized tasks, the enduring value of human work shifts toward areas of responsibility, trust-building, and final decision-making—aspects that AI cannot replicate. The real "moat" for professionals lies in these irreplaceable human elements.

marsbit2 h fa

Altman Admits: Overestimated AI Snatching Jobs! Huang Renxun: The Unemployment Narrative Is Completely Backwards

marsbit2 h fa

Trading

Spot
活动图片