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

Trending Cryptos

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

2026 Mid-Year Report On-Chain RWA: Tokenized Stock Market Cap Doubles in a Year, But 90% of Rights Are Hollow Shells

The 2026 Mid-Year Report on On-Chain RWA highlights a significant growth in tokenized stock market capitalization, which nearly doubled from $951 million in March to $1.89 billion by July. However, the report reveals a fundamental contradiction in this "layer 2.5" ecosystem: products with the strongest legal foundation (like regulated U.S. infrastructure) lack liquidity and distribution, while freely tradable offshored wrapper products often lack substantive ownership rights. The increase is driven largely by a few products (SECZ, FGRS, STRCx) and platforms (Ondo, xStocks, Securitize collectively hold over 85% share). While distributed value across networks like Ethereum, Solana, and BNB Chain has grown, the market remains fragmented. Products referencing the same underlying asset (e.g., Apple stock) are distinct legal liabilities with different intermediaries and jurisdictional rules, offering varying degrees of legal claim. The report cautions that headline numbers are misleading, as they reflect changes in distributed token value—driven by issuance, conversions, and price movements—not pure investor inflows. True "canonical shares" with legal ownership, wide wallet distribution, institutional liquidity, and independent on-chain price discovery do not yet exist at scale. Tokenized treasuries show stronger product-market fit, and ETFs may be easier to scale than single stocks. The core takeaway is a trade-off: legal certainty versus liquidity and composability.

marsbit3m ago

2026 Mid-Year Report On-Chain RWA: Tokenized Stock Market Cap Doubles in a Year, But 90% of Rights Are Hollow Shells

marsbit3m ago

Coldcard Hardware Wallet Hacked: 594 Bitcoin Withdrawn in 25 Minutes

The Coldcard hardware wallet has been compromised, with hackers stealing approximately 594.5 Bitcoin (~$40 million) from 500 addresses in just 25 minutes. The root cause was a critical software bug, undetected for five years, which disabled the device's secure chip for generating true random numbers. This led to the creation of private keys based on predictable data like the processor's serial number, drastically reducing cryptographic security. The attackers exploited this offline by brute-forcing possible seed phrases, finding active addresses on the public ledger, and signing transactions. Initially, Coinkite (Coldcard's maker) claimed only older models were at risk but later admitted all devices running the compromised firmware were vulnerable. CEO Rodolphe Novak (NVK) apologized but ruled out financial compensation for affected users. To secure funds, owners must urgently update their firmware to specific safe versions, generate a completely new seed phrase on the updated device, and transfer all assets to new addresses created with that new seed. While a BIP-39 passphrase can help, it does not replace this migration process. Other Coinkite products like TAPSIGNER were not affected. This incident underscores that even specialized hardware requires rigorous, independent code audits, especially for cryptographic functions. It parallels past failures, like a 2006 OpenSSL bug in Debian, and raises questions about whether automated code analysis can ever fully replace human scrutiny in critical security areas.

cryptonews.ru2h ago

Coldcard Hardware Wallet Hacked: 594 Bitcoin Withdrawn in 25 Minutes

cryptonews.ru2h ago

Trading

Spot

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