Hyperliquid Policy Center’s Concerns Over CLARITY Act– Urges Fixes To Protect DeFi Developers

bitcoinistPublished on 2026-03-28Last updated on 2026-03-28

Abstract

The Hyperliquid Policy Center (HPC), led by CEO Jake Chervinsky, has raised significant concerns regarding the CLARITY Act as it approaches a potential Senate Banking Committee markup. While a key debate has centered on a provision that would bar platforms from offering yield on stablecoins, Chervinsky argues the most critical issue is protecting non-custodial DeFi software developers from being misclassified as money transmitters and subjected to KYC obligations. He points to the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act (BRCA) within the draft, which provides such protections, but warns that conflicting language in Title 3 of the CLARITY Act could still impose these duties on developers, which he calls "non-negotiable for DeFi." Senator Cynthia Lummis responded, assuring that bipartisan negotiators are working on amendments to Title 3 to strengthen protections. The timeline for the Senate Banking Committee's markup remains uncertain.

A fresh round of disagreement over the CLARITY Act has revealed ongoing concerns originating from the Hyperliquid Policy Center (HPC), as lawmakers prepare for a potential Senate Banking Committee markup.

The debate intensified after a potential deal surfaced earlier in the week, suggesting the bill would broadly bar platforms from offering yield on stablecoins or assets that operate like bank deposits. That provision, along with other unresolved clauses, has prompted a flurry of comments from industry figures and lawmakers.

Hyperliquid Policy Center CEO’s Warning

Jake Chervinsky, CEO of the recently launched Hyperliquid Policy Center, took to social media platform X (previously Twitter) to push back on how the debate has been framed.

While acknowledging that stablecoin yield is a headline-grabbing issue, Chervinsky warned it is not the only sticking point. His primary concern centers on protecting non‐custodial software developers from being mischaracterized as money transmitters.

“That’s non‐negotiable for DeFi,” he wrote, arguing that developers must not be subject to the same regulatory obligations as custodial firms if decentralized finance is to function. He urged fixes to elements of the bill that, in his view, would undermine those protections.

At the heart of Chervinsky’s argument is the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act (BRCA), which appears as Section 604 in the last Senate Banking draft.

The BRCA explicitly clarifies that “non‐controlling developers and providers” are not financial institutions required to meet know-your-customer (KYC) obligations under the Bank Secrecy Act.

But Chervinsky says that other portions of the CLARITY Act — specifically parts of Title 3 — still contain language that could subject many non‐custodial developers to KYC duties despite the BRCA’s protections.

“Those sections must be fixed or the bill doesn’t work for DeFi,” he warned. “If the bill doesn’t work for DeFi, it doesn’t work at all.”

Senate Banking Markup Date Remains Unclear

Senator Cynthia Lummis, a leading GOP negotiator on the measure, responded directly to the social media post and sought to reassure stakeholders that bipartisan progress is near.

Lummis told Chervinsky not to “believe the FUD,” stressing that negotiators have spent recent weeks drafting changes to Title 3 designed to make the bill “the strongest protection for DeFi and developers ever enacted.”

The Hyperliquid Policy Center’s CEO answered that both sides largely agree on the need to protect developers and noted that the public draft already contains meaningful safeguards in the BRCA and in Sections 207 and 601. Still, he reiterated his concern about unresolved language in Title 3.

All this unfolds while the timetable for a formal Senate Banking Committee markup remains unclear. The Agriculture Committee has already approved its portion of the legislation in January, but the banking panel has not yet scheduled a markup.

Hyperliquid’s native token retrace below $40 on the daily chart. Source: HYPEUSDT on TradingView.com

At the time of writing, decentralized exchange Hyperliquid’s native token, HYPE, was trading at roughly $38.5, down 1.6% in the previous 24 hours. Nonetheless, the token has made 33% increases in the monthly time frame, outperforming the largest cryptocurrencies during the same time period.

Featured image from OpenArt, chart from TradingView.com

Related Questions

QWhat is the primary concern of the Hyperliquid Policy Center (HPC) regarding the CLARITY Act?

AThe primary concern is protecting non-custodial software developers from being mischaracterized as money transmitters and being subjected to the same regulatory obligations as custodial firms, such as KYC duties.

QWhich specific section of the Senate Banking draft does Jake Chervinsky point to as providing explicit protection for developers?

AHe points to the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act (BRCA), which appears as Section 604, as it explicitly clarifies that 'non-controlling developers and providers' are not financial institutions required to meet KYC obligations.

QAccording to Chervinsky, which part of the CLARITY Act still contains problematic language that could undermine the BRCA's protections?

AHe states that parts of Title 3 still contain language that could subject many non-custodial developers to KYC duties despite the protections offered by the BRCA.

QHow did Senator Cynthia Lummis respond to the concerns raised about the CLARITY Act?

ASenator Lummis responded directly to the social media post, urging stakeholders not to 'believe the FUD' and assuring them that negotiators have been drafting changes to Title 3 to make the bill the strongest protection for DeFi and developers ever enacted.

QWhat was the performance of Hyperliquid's native token, HYPE, at the time of writing?

AAt the time of writing, HYPE was trading at roughly $38.5, down 1.6% in the previous 24 hours, but had increased by 33% over the monthly time frame.

Related Reads

When Doing Cryptocurrency Payment, the First Thing is Licenses, What is the Second?

When launching a crypto payment business, obtaining the necessary licenses is the crucial first step. However, the second, and arguably more critical, step is designing a comprehensive operational framework that forms a coherent business loop. This loop must be clearly understood and executable by all stakeholders: banks, payment partners, exchanges, on-chain analytics providers, regulators, and your internal team. Many projects mistakenly believe a single license permits all operations. Licenses merely grant entry; they don't define how the specific business functions. The real challenge lies in detailing every aspect of the workflow. This involves clarifying the customer base, the flow of fiat and crypto assets, the settlement process, and establishing clear lines of responsibility for risks like AML compliance, sanctions screening, chargebacks, and regulatory inquiries. A robust framework must answer seven core questions: Who are the clients and merchants? Who collects fiat and crypto? Who handles conversion and custody? And who is ultimately accountable for compliance and risk management? Projects often fail not from a lack of licensing, but during due diligence when they cannot convincingly explain these operational details. Therefore, beyond securing licenses, the priority must be constructing a closed-loop system. This system ensures the business model is transparent, risks are managed, responsibilities are delineated, contracts are aligned, and the entire process is comprehensible to partners and regulators. The true competitive edge in crypto payments lies not in acquiring a license quickly, but in integrating licensing, banking, compliance, and operations into a sustainable and executable whole.

marsbit20m ago

When Doing Cryptocurrency Payment, the First Thing is Licenses, What is the Second?

marsbit20m ago

Arthur Hayes Analysis: AI Bubble Nears Burst, Crypto Market Faces Short-Term Pressure

Arthur Hayes argues that the current AI market is a bubble poised to burst, which will exert downward pressure on the crypto market in the near term. The core trigger is rising oil prices due to the US-Iran conflict and a blockade of the Strait of Hormuz. Higher energy costs directly increase the operational expenses of AI data centers, squeezing profit margins for companies like Google, Anthropic, and OpenAI. Hayes predicts that persistent inflation from high oil prices will force Trump, in a bid to win the November election, to turn public sentiment against the AI industry. He may propose regulations and taxes on data centers and AI companies to appeal to voters concerned about costs and job displacement. Such political rhetoric could shatter market confidence. Furthermore, the market is unlikely to healthily absorb the massive concurrent IPOs of SpaceX, Anthropic, and OpenAI, which together seek valuations in the trillions. The combination of soaring energy costs, overwhelming equity supply, and negative political pressure will puncture the AI bubble. Hayes notes that nearly all new USD liquidity since 2022 has flowed into AI, leaving crypto like Bitcoin behind. When the AI bubble bursts, liquidity will contract sharply, pulling down all risk assets, including cryptocurrencies. In response, Hayes's fund, Maelstrom, has sold all AI-related stocks and non-core cryptocurrencies. It maintains core positions in Bitcoin and Ethereum while increasing exposure to energy sector equities, betting on rising oil and gas prices. He expects Bitcoin to bottom after the AI-led market decline, before rallying again with future monetary easing.

Foresight News34m ago

Arthur Hayes Analysis: AI Bubble Nears Burst, Crypto Market Faces Short-Term Pressure

Foresight News34m ago

To C, To B, and the Next Big Thing Called To A

After To C and To B, the Next Wave is To A: Serving AI Agents In a recent quarterly earnings call, Meituan's Wang Xing introduced a new concept: To A (To Agent), signifying that future business services will increasingly target AI Agents as primary clients, not just consumers or merchants. This shift implies that internet giants must now consider how to make their services more appealing for AI Agents to recommend, fundamentally altering traditional distribution logic. This "To A era" is prompting an unusual trend of alliances among major tech companies. Unlike previous competitive battles, firms like Meituan, Tencent, JD.com, Huawei, OPPO, and OpenAI are rapidly forming partnerships. The reason is strategic: as AI Agents become the primary user interface, handling tasks from a single command (e.g., "Book a Japanese restaurant for tomorrow"), the risk for platforms is being bypassed entirely. Companies are positioning themselves within this new value chain. Three primary strategies are emerging: 1. **Super-Entry Points + Service Providers:** Platforms like Tencent's Yuanbao, WeChat, and ChatGPT aim to be the first-stop Agent, integrating various services (food delivery, shopping, travel) from partners like Meituan and JD.com. 2. **Apps as Callable Services:** Companies like Meituan, JD.com, and Uber are ensuring their core services remain accessible and callable by external Agents, shifting from front-end apps to back-end capabilities. 3. **System-Level Agent Entry Points:** Smartphone makers (Huawei, Honor, OPPO) are leveraging their OS-level AI assistants to control the initial user command, redistributing it to relevant service apps. While alliances offer mutual benefit—entry points gain service capabilities, and service providers gain traffic—inherent conflicts of interest exist. A dominant Agent platform could eventually attempt to connect directly with suppliers (restaurants, hotels), bypassing current aggregators like Meituan or Ctrip. Other unresolved challenges include the potential for Agent recommendations to become a new form of paid ranking and unclear accountability for faulty recommendations. The current rush to form alliances is a defensive move by service providers to secure their position before the landscape solidifies. In this To A-driven restructuring, the greatest risk is not losing the race but failing to hear the starting gun.

marsbit43m ago

To C, To B, and the Next Big Thing Called To A

marsbit43m ago

The More Lifelike the Robot, the More Terrifying? Unveiling the 'Uncanny Valley Effect' in the Era of Humanoid Robots

As humanoid robots become increasingly lifelike, they confront a significant psychological barrier known as the "Uncanny Valley Effect," a concept proposed by Japanese roboticist Masahiro Mori in 1970. This phenomenon describes a dip in human comfort and acceptance when robots appear almost, but not perfectly, human. Minor imperfections in facial expressions, eye movements, or skin texture trigger a subconscious sense of unease, as the brain detects something trying, yet failing, to mimic a person. Examples range from the controversial human-like robot Sophia to animated characters in films like *The Polar Express*. The effect poses a key design challenge for robotics companies. Some, like Boston Dynamics, avoid it entirely by creating highly capable but visibly mechanical robots. Others, like Hanson Robotics, push for greater human likeness despite the risk. For consumer robots, especially in homes, most manufacturers opt for stylized or clearly mechanical designs to ensure broader acceptance. While the Uncanny Valley remains a powerful force, its impact may diminish over time through technological advancements that achieve near-perfect realism or through generational familiarity as people grow accustomed to interacting with humanoid machines. Ultimately, navigating this psychological frontier requires as much understanding of human perception as of robotics technology itself.

marsbit43m ago

The More Lifelike the Robot, the More Terrifying? Unveiling the 'Uncanny Valley Effect' in the Era of Humanoid Robots

marsbit43m ago

Trading

Spot
Futures

Hot Articles

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 S (S) are presented below.

活动图片