Blockchain Association Urges Congress To Keep BRCA Intact In Crypto Market Structure Bill

bitcoinistPublished on 2026-02-27Last updated on 2026-02-27

Abstract

With a March 1 deadline approaching for the CLARITY Act, the Blockchain Association is intensifying its advocacy efforts on Capitol Hill. The trade group is urging lawmakers to preserve the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act (BRCA) within the upcoming crypto market structure bill. Its primary focus is on Title III of the draft legislation, emphasizing the need to protect open-source software developers from being regulated as financial intermediaries. The association argues that developers who write and publish non-custodial code, without controlling user assets, should not be subject to the same rules as financial institutions. This distinction is presented as crucial for fostering American leadership in DeFi innovation. Concurrently, a new bipartisan bill, the Promoting Innovation in Blockchain Development Act of 2026, has been introduced in the House to explicitly protect developers from prosecution under laws targeting unlicensed money transmitters.

With a White House deadline on the anticipated CLARITY Act set for March 1, crypto policy discussions are intensifying in Washington. On Thursday afternoon, Senate Democrats are scheduled to meet to continue deliberations on the crypto market structure bill.

Ahead of those talks, the Blockchain Association returned to Capitol Hill to press lawmakers on how decentralized finance (DeFi) will be treated in the latest draft from the Senate Banking Committee.

Blockchain Association Lobbies For Developer Protections

The industry trade group, which represents a range of crypto companies, said its advocacy efforts are focused particularly on Title III of the draft legislation and on preserving the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act (BRCA) as negotiations move forward.

In a post on social media platform X, the organization stated that leaders from 18 member companies were meeting with 24 Senate offices across both the Banking and Agriculture Committees.

According to the association, the stakes extend beyond technical regulatory language. “Today’s meetings are about whether America will keep its commitment to open innovation — and to the developers who build permissionless software,” the group wrote.

It emphasized that it has consistently pushed for legislation that clearly distinguishes between developers of non-custodial software and financial intermediaries that actually take control of customer funds.

As Congress works toward a comprehensive framework for digital asset markets, the association argued, policymakers must ensure that DeFi protocols are not effectively pushed out of existence through overly broad rules.

Clear Line Between Custodians And Code Writers

Central to the debate is the treatment of open-source developers. The group maintains that developers who publish code but do not custody or manage user assets should not be regulated as financial institutions.

“Open-source developers should not be treated as financial intermediaries when they do not custody or control customer assets,” the association said, adding that the United States has a significant opportunity to lead globally in DeFi innovation if it gets the policy approach right.

Summer Mersinger, the Blockchain Association’s chief executive officer, reinforced that message in a post earlier Thursday. She described developer protections as foundational to what she called the next wave of American innovation.

As lawmakers advance market structure legislation, she said, it is essential to draw a clear boundary between entities that hold and control consumer funds and those that merely create and publish open-source software.

New Bipartisan Crypto Bill

The debate over developer liability is also unfolding in the House of Representatives. On Thursday, crypto journalist Eleanor Terrett reported that Representatives Scott Fitzgerald, Ben Cline, and Zoe Lofgren introduced the bipartisan Promoting Innovation in Blockchain Development Act of 2026.

The proposed legislation is designed to protect software developers from prosecution under Section 1960 of the federal criminal code. The bill seeks to clarify that Section 1960 — originally crafted to address unlicensed money transmitters that custody customer funds — applies only to actors who actually control user assets.

It would exclude developers who simply write or publish code, a distinction that the crypto industry, and especially the DeFi sector, has been advocating to incorporate into the CLARITY Act.

The daily chart shows the total crypto market cap valuation at $2.3 trillion as of Thursday afternoon. Source: TOTAL on TradingView.com

Featured image from DALL-E, chart from TradingView.com

Related Questions

QWhat is the Blockchain Association urging Congress to do regarding the BRCA in the crypto market structure bill?

AThe Blockchain Association is urging Congress to keep the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act (BRCA) intact as negotiations on the crypto market structure bill move forward.

QWhich specific part of the draft legislation is the Blockchain Association's advocacy focused on?

AThe association's advocacy efforts are focused particularly on Title III of the draft legislation.

QAccording to the Blockchain Association, what is the fundamental distinction that must be made in regulation?

AThe association argues for a clear distinction between developers of non-custodial software and financial intermediaries that actually take control of customer funds.

QWhat is the name and purpose of the new bipartisan bill introduced in the House of Representatives?

AThe new bipartisan bill is called the Promoting Innovation in Blockchain Development Act of 2026. Its purpose is to protect software developers from prosecution under Section 1960 of the federal criminal code by clarifying that it only applies to actors who control user assets, not those who merely write or publish code.

QWhat does the Blockchain Association say is at stake in these policy discussions?

AThe association states that the stakes are about whether America will keep its commitment to open innovation and to the developers who build permissionless software, ensuring that DeFi protocols are not pushed out of existence by overly broad rules.

Related Reads

Meta: Can Afford Trillion-Dollar Computing Power, But Can't Keep Key People

Meta's AI Ambition: A $135 Billion Bet on Chips, But Losing Key Talent In July 2025, Meta recruited top AI infrastructure engineer Ruoming Pang from Apple with a compensation package worth over $200 million. However, just seven months later, he left for OpenAI, forfeiting much of his unvested equity. This high-profile departure is part of a broader trend of key talent leaving Meta's AI division, including Chief AI Scientist Yann LeCun and other senior figures. The exodus is largely attributed to the fallout from the Llama 4 model's release in April 2025. The model was later revealed to have been benchmarked unethically, using different model versions to optimize scores on different tests, severely damaging trust within the developer community. This scandal led CEO Mark Zuckerberg to lose confidence in the team, resulting in a major reorganization. He appointed 28-year-old Scale AI CEO Alexandr Wang as Chief AI Officer, who now oversees the new Meta Superintelligent Lab (MSL). The planned flagship model, Llama 4 Behemoth, was indefinitely delayed. Compounding these software issues, Meta also canceled its most advanced in-house AI training chip project, a critical part of its plan to reduce reliance on Nvidia. This failure has triggered a panic-buying spree. In February 2026, Meta announced a capital expenditure budget of $115-$135 billion, nearly double the previous year's. Within ten days, it signed massive, multi-year chip deals: a multi-billion dollar agreement with Nvidia for Blackwell and Vera Rubin GPUs, a $60-$100 billion deal with AMD for MI450 GPUs (which included warrants for a 10% stake), and a multi-billion dollar deal to rent Google's TPU chips. This strategy of acquiring immense, diverse hardware from three different architectures (CUDA, ROCm, XLA/JAX) creates immense engineering complexity. Ironically, Meta is spending hundreds of billions on the world's most complex hardware while losing the rare engineers, like Pang, capable of building the cross-platform frameworks needed to make it all work. Zuckerberg's gamble mirrors his all-in bet on the metaverse: see a trend, spend heavily, reorganize frequently. The difference is that AI is a more tangible opportunity, and Meta's core advertising business generates massive cash flow to fund it. However, the article concludes that money can buy chips and算力, but it cannot guarantee the retention of top talent or the development of a winning model. If Meta's next model, codenamed "Avocado," fails to compete with GPT-5 and Gemini 3 Ultra, its massive expenditure will have only built expensive data centers full of underutilized hardware. The AI race is won by those who can build transformative models, not just those who can write the biggest checks.

marsbit1h ago

Meta: Can Afford Trillion-Dollar Computing Power, But Can't Keep Key People

marsbit1h ago

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片