CLARITY Act Could Clear This Year, Solana Policy Institute Says—But 4 Demands Remain To Be Met

bitcoinistPublished on 2026-06-10Last updated on 2026-06-10

Abstract

Kristin Smith, President of the Solana Policy Institute and CEO of the Blockchain Association, urged the U.S. Senate to pass the CLARITY Act, emphasizing four specific priorities must be met first. The legislation aims to provide legal clarity for public blockchain operations, focusing on protecting open-source developers and infrastructure providers who do not custody assets or control transactions. Smith argued that strong developer protections, including the key Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act (BRCA), enhance enforcement by clearly distinguishing between different market participants, allowing authorities to target bad actors more effectively. She warned that weakening these protections could undermine the act's goal of giving builders confidence to operate in the U.S. Smith's position is to protect developers, target bad actors, preserve open-source innovation, and maintain U.S. leadership in crypto.

Kristin Smith, President of the Solana Policy Institute and CEO at the Blockchain Association, urged the US Senate to pass the anticipated CLARITY Act on Tuesday, while emphasizing four specific priorities she said must be addressed before the bill receives a full vote.

Protect Developers, Target Bad Actors

Speaking on social media site X (formerly Twitter), Smith framed the legislation as a chance to strengthen legal clarity around how public blockchains operate—particularly for the developers and infrastructure providers who build and maintain the open-source systems.

In a letter published on Tuesday, signed by more than 60 leading CEOs and founders, the industry calls on the Senate to move forward with the CLARITY Act while preserving what Smith described as robust developer protections.

According to Smith, Protecting developers sits at the center of Solana Institute’s mission. She said public blockchains depend on open-source contributors who write, maintain, and improve the code that runs them.

Because these engineers typically publish software that can be downloaded and used by anyone, she argued that they do not directly hold money, do not have the ability to freeze accounts, and do not move funds.

Smith also argued that strong developer protections do not weaken enforcement. Instead, she said that through the potential passage of the CLARITY Act, they could make enforcement more effective by creating clearer lines between different participants in the market.

When the law clearly distinguishes between intermediaries that custody assets or control transactions, bad actors, regulators, and prosecutors can focus their attention on the parties she described as actually responsible for illicit conduct—such as those custodying funds, operating platforms, or facilitating wrongdoing.

CLARITY Act With BRCA Intact

In her message, Smith pointed specifically to the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act (BRCA) as a key element of that approach. Smith said the BRCA provides legal certainty for noncontrolling software developers and infrastructure providers who do not custodian assets or control user transactions.

Smith also referenced a separate letter released by the Blockchain Association, saying that last week, 160 former national security, intelligence, and law enforcement professionals made a similar argument: that “clarity is an enforcement advantage.”

In her account, clearer rules help keep legitimate activity onshore and provide prosecutors with better tools to target bad actors, rather than creating uncertainty that discourages compliant development.

In Smith’s view, the core objective is not simply to pass a bill, but to ensure it leads to meaningful certainty for builders. She warned that if developer protections are weakened, the broader CLARITY Act could fall short of one of its most important goals—giving responsible builders confidence to work in the United States.

Smith concluded that the Senate should pass the CLARITY Act with the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act intact. She summarized her position as a straightforward set of goals: protect developers, target bad actors, preserve open-source innovation, and maintain US leadership in the crypto sector.

The daily chart shows the total crypto market cap at $2.12 trillion. Source: TOTAL on TradingView.com

Featured image created with OpenArt; chart from TradingView.com

Related Questions

QWhat is the main purpose of the CLARITY Act according to Kristin Smith and the Solana Policy Institute?

AThe main purpose is to strengthen legal clarity around how public blockchains operate, specifically to protect developers and infrastructure providers, while making enforcement against bad actors more effective by clearly distinguishing between different market participants.

QWhat are the four specific priorities or demands that Kristin Smith emphasized must be addressed before the CLARITY Act receives a full vote?

AThe four priorities are: protect developers, target bad actors, preserve open-source innovation, and maintain US leadership in the crypto sector.

QWhy does Kristin Smith argue that strong developer protections do not weaken enforcement?

AShe argues that clearer legal lines between different participants, such as developers who don't custody assets and intermediaries who do, allow regulators and prosecutors to focus their attention on parties actually responsible for illicit conduct, thereby making enforcement more effective.

QWhat specific piece of legislation did Smith point to as a key element for providing legal certainty to developers?

AShe pointed to the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act (BRCA) as a key element that provides legal certainty for noncontrolling software developers and infrastructure providers who do not custodian assets or control user transactions.

QWhat warning did Smith give regarding the potential weakening of developer protections in the CLARITY Act?

AShe warned that if developer protections are weakened, the broader CLARITY Act could fail to achieve one of its most important goals: giving responsible builders the confidence to work in the United States.

Related Reads

Apple Also Has to Pay Rent Now

Apple Pays Rent Too: The Two-Way Flow of "Traffic Tax" and "AI Capability Rent" Between Tech Giants For over two decades, Google has paid Apple an estimated $20 billion annually to remain the default search engine on Safari, a "traffic tax" for a critical user entry point. However, in 2026, the direction of this cash flow partially reversed. Apple agreed to pay Google roughly $1 billion per year to license its Gemini AI models, as Apple's own models reportedly struggled with complex tasks. This creates a unique dynamic: Apple acts as the "landlord" in the established search ecosystem, collecting rent from Google for access. Simultaneously, in the emerging AI arena, Apple becomes the "tenant," paying Google for access to cutting-edge AI capabilities it cannot currently match internally. While Apple claims its new models are "distilled" from Gemini outputs and contain "not a drop" of Google's original code, core dependencies remain. Its knowledge base is refined using Gemini's outputs, and its most powerful cloud model runs on Google's infrastructure. Apple has structured the deal as non-exclusive, allowing it to theoretically switch AI suppliers—a hedge against over-reliance. The future hinges on whether advanced AI models become a commodity (cheap and abundant) or remain a concentrated, scarce resource (expensive and controlled by few). Apple is betting on the former, leveraging its massive device ecosystem to be a powerful, choosy customer. If the latter proves true, its bargaining power could erode. This power dynamic is extending to developers. Apple, Google, and WeChat are all pushing for apps to expose their core functions as standardized "actions" or "intents" that their respective AI assistants (Siri, Gemini, WeChat AI) can directly call. The new scarce resource is no longer just app store visibility, but "being selected by the AI." The currency of "rent" has changed from a 30% revenue share to ceding control over how users interact with an app's functions.

marsbit43m ago

Apple Also Has to Pay Rent Now

marsbit43m ago

Missed the SpaceX IPO? WEEX's "First Trade Protection" Lets You Experience US Stock Trading Risk-Free.

With the excitement around SpaceX's recent public listing reigniting interest in the US stock market, Chinese investors face significant challenges accessing compliant and convenient trading channels following regulatory actions against major online brokers. This article explores the available options, highlighting their risks and limitations. Traditional paths for US stock investments remain problematic. Qualified Domestic Institutional Investor (QDII) and Listed Open-Ended Fund (LOF) products, while compliant, suffer from high fees, significant purchase premiums, and a very limited selection of assets. Small, unregulated offshore brokers pose substantial risks, including potential insolvency. While secure, VIP accounts at banks in Hong Kong or Singapore require high minimum deposits (often 1-2 million RMB) and in-person visits, placing them out of reach for most retail investors. The article positions cryptocurrency exchanges, specifically their TradFi (traditional finance on-chain) offerings, as a compelling alternative. Platforms like WEEX are noted for providing access to a wide range of US stocks and ETFs, including SpaceX (SPCXON), through tokenized assets. This method offers advantages such as a single account for both crypto and traditional assets, USDT-based settlement avoiding fiat complexities, flexible leverage, and robust risk management. To attract users, WEEX is promoting a "First Trade Guarantee" campaign. Running from June 15 to July 8 (UTC+8), it features a $30,000 prize pool. Users who trade $500 worth of US stock contracts can qualify for a guarantee on their first eligible trade: 100% loss coverage up to $30 or a 20% bonus on profits up to $30. The campaign is presented as a low-risk opportunity for both crypto natives and traditional investors to experience US stock trading.

marsbit44m ago

Missed the SpaceX IPO? WEEX's "First Trade Protection" Lets You Experience US Stock Trading Risk-Free.

marsbit44m ago

How Difficult is Chip Making? A Division Error Costs 475 Million Dollars

How Hard Is It to Make a Chip? A Division Error Cost $475 Million Chip expert Shi Kan, a researcher at the Chinese Academy of Sciences and a popular tech creator, explains the immense challenges of chip development. Chips are foundational to modern technology, but their creation is extraordinarily difficult. The journey from sand to a functional chip involves complex design and manufacturing, but a critical bottleneck is verification—ensuring the design works flawlessly before costly production. A single, undetected bug can have catastrophic consequences, as illustrated by the infamous 1994 Intel Pentium FDIV bug. A flaw in the floating-point division unit forced a recall costing $475 million. Unlike software, chips cannot be easily patched after manufacture, making "first-time success" paramount. However, industry surveys show only 24% of chip projects achieve this; over three-quarters require at least one costly re-spin due to design flaws. Verification has thus become the dominant phase, consuming up to 70% of the design cycle. The core challenge is a "verification impossible triangle" between high performance, good debuggability, and low cost. Exhaustively verifying a modern CPU core could take 15,000 years with software simulation, or 30 years with advanced hardware emulation—timeframes utterly impractical for development. Despite being essential, verification is often seen as unglamorous "dirty work," receiving less academic attention than fields like AI. Shi and his team are tackling this by developing an agile verification research framework called ENCORE, based on FPGA technology, to improve verification efficiency and debug capability. Beyond research, Shi engages in public science communication through long-form video content, aiming to demystify chip technology, AI, and computer science. He argues for the value of pursuing "hard and long-term" endeavors, whether in the meticulous world of chip verification or in creating substantive educational content, believing such sustained effort is likely the right path forward.

marsbit54m ago

How Difficult is Chip Making? A Division Error Costs 475 Million Dollars

marsbit54m ago

Trading

Spot
Futures

Hot Articles

How to Buy 4

Welcome to HTX.com! We've made purchasing 4 (4) simple and convenient. Follow our step-by-step guide to embark on your crypto journey.Step 1: Create Your HTX AccountUse your email or phone number to sign up for a free account on HTX. Experience a hassle-free registration journey and unlock all features.Get My AccountStep 2: Go to Buy Crypto and Choose Your Payment MethodCredit/Debit Card: Use your Visa or Mastercard to buy 4 (4) instantly.Balance: Use funds from your HTX account balance to trade seamlessly.Third Parties: We've added popular payment methods such as Google Pay and Apple Pay to enhance convenience.P2P: Trade directly with other users on HTX.Over-the-Counter (OTC): We offer tailor-made services and competitive exchange rates for traders.Step 3: Store Your 4 (4)After purchasing your 4 (4), store it in your HTX account. Alternatively, you can send it elsewhere via blockchain transfer or use it to trade other cryptocurrencies.Step 4: Trade 4 (4)Easily trade 4 (4) on HTX's spot market. Simply access your account, select your trading pair, execute your trades, and monitor in real-time. We offer a user-friendly experience for both beginners and seasoned traders.

4.3k Total ViewsPublished 2025.10.20Updated 2026.06.02

How to Buy 4

Discussions

Welcome to the HTX Community. Here, you can stay informed about the latest platform developments and gain access to professional market insights. Users' opinions on the price of 4 (4) are presented below.

活动图片