Senate Judiciary flags DeFi oversight ‘gaps’ in U.S. crypto bill

ambcryptoPublished on 2026-01-17Last updated on 2026-01-17

Abstract

The Senate Judiciary Committee, led by Chuck Grassley and Dick Durbin, has raised concerns about the CLARITY Act, a broader crypto market structure bill. They warn that exemptions in the bill could allow DeFi software developers to avoid financial licensing requirements for money-transmitting businesses, potentially weakening federal criminal code enforcement tools used by the Department of Justice. The Judiciary Committee argues it was not consulted on these changes and urged the Senate Banking Committee to reject the exemptions, citing risks such as enabling money laundering. In response, the Banking Committee defended the protections for developers, stating the provisions fall under its jurisdiction and aim to prevent unfair prosecution of those without control over funds or transactions. The bill faces further uncertainty after Coinbase withdrew support, and the White House reportedly warned the exchange to return to negotiations or risk losing backing. The future of the legislation remains unclear.

The broader crypto market structure, the CLARITY Act, has hit another snag, this time from the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The Committee’s Chair, Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), and ranking member, Dick Durbin (D-Illinois), raised an alarm about a section of the bill.

They pointed out that it would exempt some DeFi software developers from financial licensing requirements for money-transmitting businesses (MTBs).

In a letter to Senate Banking Committee Chair Tim Scott and Ranking Member Elizabeth Warren (D‐Massachusetts), Senators Grassley and Durbin emphasized that they had not been consulted. They argued that the mandate nonetheless falls within their jurisdiction.

The Senate Judiciary Committee went further, warning that the bill’s exemptions “weaken” the federal criminal code. They stressed that this code is a critical enforcement tool for the Department of Justice in combating serious crime.

“By providing a sweeping exemption to non-controlling developers or providers from critical portions of Titles 18 and 31.”

The letter further stated,

“The Senate Judiciary Committee, which has jurisdiction over Title 18, was not consulted or given the opportunity to meaningfully review the proposed changes in advance.”

The senators warned that the proposed exemptions could allow founders, such as Roman Storm of the crypto mixer Tornado Cash, to walk free, even after facilitating the laundering of large‐scale criminal proceeds.

As a consequence, the Judiciary Committee urged its banking colleagues to reject these exemptions. They emphasized the need to close potential DeFi oversight “gaps” in the bill to ensure accountability.

Senate Banking defends developer protections

For perspective, Storm was convicted of conspiracy to operate an unlicensed MTBs despite not having custody of funds or discretionary control over transactions.

This section of the bill, known as the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act (BRCA), was added to the broader crypto legislation.

Its purpose is to protect software developers from what lawmakers describe as “unfair” prosecution. Specifically, it seeks to shield them from liability under the Bank Secrecy Act and criminal law.

Even pro-crypto Cynthia Lummis backed these exemptions, provided the platforms don’t control the funds or transactions.

Source: X/Cynthia Lummis

In a response to Senate Judiciary claims, Tim Scott’s spokesperson, Jeff Naft, told Politico that BRCA falls within the Banking Committee and added,

“The Chairman (Scott) remains committed to protecting software developers while ensuring that law enforcement has the necessary tools to prosecute actual illegal money transmission operations.”

Uncertainty rocks crypto bill

The bill’s progress hit a roadblock after Coinbase withdrew support, citing ‘too many issues’ including a ban on stablecoin rewards.

Coinbase’s CEO Brian Armstrong’s “no bill, better than bad bill” stance has left the industry divided, intensifying uncertainty on the bill’s way forward.

That said, White House was reportedly unhappy with Coinbase’s move, calling it a ‘rug-pull’ against the entire industry.

According to reporter Eleanor Terrett, citing an insider, the White House will also pull support if Coinbase does come back to negotiations, adding that,

“This is President Trump’s bill at the end of the day, not Brian Armstrong’s”

It remains to be seen whether the bill will regain momentum in the coming days.


Final Thoughts

  • Senate Judiciary pressed for rejection of DeFi software developer exemptions to strengthen DoJ oversight in the space.
  • The White House reportedly warned Coinbase to return to negotiations or risk losing support.

Related Questions

QWhat specific concern did the Senate Judiciary Committee raise about the CLARITY Act?

AThe Senate Judiciary Committee raised concerns that the bill would exempt some DeFi software developers from financial licensing requirements for money-transmitting businesses, which they argue would 'weaken' the federal criminal code and create oversight gaps.

QWhich specific legal titles did the Judiciary Committee argue were being weakened by the proposed exemptions?

AThe Judiciary Committee argued that the exemptions would weaken critical portions of Titles 18 and 31 of the U.S. Code, which fall under their jurisdiction.

QWhat is the purpose of the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act (BRCA) section added to the broader crypto bill?

AThe Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act (BRCA) aims to protect software developers from what lawmakers describe as 'unfair' prosecution by shielding them from liability under the Bank Secrecy Act and criminal law, provided they don't control funds or transactions.

QWhy did Coinbase withdraw its support for the crypto bill?

ACoinbase withdrew its support for the bill citing 'too many issues,' including a proposed ban on stablecoin rewards.

QWhat was the White House's reported reaction to Coinbase's withdrawal from the bill negotiations?

AThe White House was reportedly unhappy with Coinbase's move, calling it a 'rug-pull' against the entire industry, and warned that they would also pull support if Coinbase did not return to negotiations.

Related Reads

Uncovering the Truth About Agent Commerce, Payments, and Infrastructure

Decoding Agent Commerce, Payments, and Infrastructure: The Reality Over the past year, I've been building infrastructure for the Agent economy, engaging with major players like Stripe, Visa, Coinbase, Google, and dozens of startups. A clear conclusion emerges: true, large-scale demand does not yet exist. Startups face structural challenges. Data points illustrate this gap. Stripe's Agent commerce platform has over 1,000 merchants but only single-digit transacting agents. Visa's Agent payment token requires 9-month KYC and a $250M revenue threshold, accessible only to giants like Amazon. On-chain analysis reveals actual daily Agent transaction volume is around $17k, half of which are test transactions. The article analyzes four potential markets: **1. Agent-to-Merchant (A2M):** Current AI shopping UX is often inferior to traditional e-commerce for visual, comparison-heavy purchases (clothing, electronics). Chat interfaces are a step back. Real merchant interest is defensive "Agent Engine Optimization," fearing future obsolescence, not current demand. Potential exists in high-frequency, low-decision purchases (e.g., food delivery) or simplifying terrible UX (complex checkouts, non-native shoppers), but these require massive consumer distribution channels dominated by giants like DoorDash and Amazon. **2. Agent-to-API (A2A):** Developers already have subscriptions and billing for core APIs (compute, data). The argument for micro-payments via crypto for sub-dollar API calls is addressed by pre-paid balances today. The deeper issue is supplier resistance; major SaaS firms rely on enterprise contracts, not fractional cent pricing. Opportunity lies in the long tail of niche services, but this is a smaller market catering to developers, a historically low-paying group. **3. Agent-to-Agent (A2A):** This remains a theoretical long-term vision with near-zero current transaction volume. It involves unique challenges: discovery, trust, negotiation, dispute resolution. When it materializes, it will require a fundamentally new settlement infrastructure for high-speed, variable-value, multi-party transactions. It's a real long-term bet, but not the current market. **4. Agent-to-Finance (A2F):** This is the only category with existing, paying demand. Integrating AI into financial workflows (trading, portfolio management) is a natural evolution and enables new capabilities like autonomous rebalancing. However, competition favors incumbents with regulatory licenses, compliance infrastructure, and existing client relationships. **The Real Issue:** Why is infrastructure still being built? Incumbents can afford long-term bets, and payment companies see every problem as a nail for their payment hammer. However, payment is just one piece. The core challenge is *coordination*—orchestrating work between Agents and humans, verifying outcomes, and settling results. Payment is part of settlement, which is part of coordination. Companies that solve the coordination problem will subsume payments, not the other way around. Startups lack the infinite runway of giants and must find today's real market, which, after a year of exploration, lies outside these four categories—in an area with real, growing, and underserved activity.

marsbit5h ago

Uncovering the Truth About Agent Commerce, Payments, and Infrastructure

marsbit5h ago

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片