US Senate Judiciary Committee Pushes To Strip Developer Safeguards From Crypto Bill

TheNewsCryptoPublished on 2026-01-19Last updated on 2026-01-19

Abstract

Senior members of the US Senate Judiciary Committee, including Chairman Chuck Grassley and ranking member Dick Durbin, have urged the Senate Banking Committee to remove developer safeguards from a proposed cryptocurrency market structure bill. They argue that provisions like the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act (BRCA)—which exempts non-custodial software developers from money transmission laws—could create enforcement gaps in combating money laundering and unlicensed financial activities. The Judiciary Committee claims jurisdiction over such criminal statutes and emphasizes that it was not consulted during the drafting process. The dispute reflects broader legislative challenges in crypto regulation, including stablecoin oversight and inter-agency coordination.

Senior members of the US Senate Judiciary Committee have called upon the Senate Banking Committee to exploit the so-called developer protections proposed in the current version of the cryptocurrency market structure bill, citing that the bill may obstruct the enforcement of federal law relating to money transmission.

The letter was written to members of the Senate Banking Committee and was signed by GOP Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and ranking member Dick Durbin, D-Illinois, where the two explain that some parts of the bill, in particular, the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act, or BRCA, would create “significant gaps in enforcement for decentralized platforms if not fixed.”

So, under this rule, software developers and providers who fail to exercise power over users’ funds will not be covered by national or state money transmission laws. Advocates of this rule believe that this rule protects software developers of non-custodial software from being held responsible for how their software is used by its users.

Senate Judiciary Committee leaders Chuck Grassley and Dick Durbin said the provisions on developer safeguards were left out of the larger crypto market structure bill because issues such as criminal law, unlicensed money transmission, and anti-money laundering enforcement are within the purview of the Judiciary Committee. The senators said that the committee was never consulted in advance about the inclusion of those provisions and underscored that any changes that impact federal criminal statutes have to go through the Judiciary Committee process.

Legislative Processes and Larger Context

Pro-developer protection lawmakers have argued that software developers who do not custody or control users’ funds should not be considered money transmitters, as is reflected in the BRCA introduced by Senators like Cynthia Lummis and Ron Wyden, which seeks to clarify that non-custodial developers are not subject to money transmission laws.

But the Senate Judiciary Committee’s leadership had concerns that including similar protections within the crypto market structure bill would muddle how the concept would be enforced and confuse how current criminal statutes—such as those dealing with money laundering and unlawful financial activity—are applied. They said it’s in their committee’s jurisdiction and should be pursued through separate legislation.

The market structure bill has also encountered some procedural issues and legislative challenges as various parties have expressed their disquiet regarding its breadth and structure. The current negotiations also encompass some outstanding issues regarding stablecoin regulation and sharing regulatory control between federal regulatory bodies such as the SEC and CFTC.

Such tendencies are part of larger Congress debates in forming digital asset legislation structure in matters such as the responsibility of developers, enforcement powers, and coordination in regulations, still under consideration by lawmakers as they continue to shape the framework of oversight of the US crypto industry.

Highlighted Crypto News:

Crypto Analyst Points to the Bloody Monday Factor After Crypto Market Slips

TagsBlockchainLawUS Senate

Related Questions

QWhat is the main concern raised by the US Senate Judiciary Committee regarding the cryptocurrency market structure bill?

AThe main concern is that the bill's developer protections, particularly the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act (BRCA), may create significant gaps in enforcement for decentralized platforms and obstruct the enforcement of federal laws related to money transmission, money laundering, and unlicensed money transmission.

QWhich senators signed the letter to the Senate Banking Committee opposing the developer safeguards in the crypto bill?

AThe letter was signed by GOP Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and ranking member Dick Durbin (D-Illinois) of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

QWhat does the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act (BRCA) propose for non-custodial software developers?

AThe BRCA proposes that software developers and providers who do not exercise control over users' funds should not be covered by national or state money transmission laws, protecting them from being held responsible for how their software is used.

QWhy did the Senate Judiciary Committee claim jurisdiction over the developer safeguards provisions?

AThe committee claimed jurisdiction because issues such as criminal law, unlicensed money transmission, and anti-money laundering enforcement fall within its purview, and it was not consulted in advance about including these provisions in the bill.

QWhat broader legislative challenges is the crypto market structure bill facing besides the developer safeguards issue?

AThe bill is facing procedural issues and challenges related to its breadth and structure, including ongoing negotiations on stablecoin regulation and the sharing of regulatory control between federal agencies like the SEC and CFTC.

Related Reads

Why Do You Always Lose Money on Polymarket? Because You're Betting on News, While the Pros Read the Rules

Why do you always lose money on Polymarket? Because you bet on news, while the pros study the rules. This article explains how top traders ("che tou") profit by meticulously analyzing market rules, not just predicting events. Polymarket, a prediction market platform, often sees disputes over event outcomes due to ambiguous rule wording. For instance, a market asking "Who will be the leader of Venezuela by the end of 2026?" was misinterpreted by many who bet on Delcy Rodríguez, assuming she held power. However, the rules specified "officially holds" as the formally appointed, sworn-in individual. Since Nicolás Maduro was still recognized as president officially, he won the market—even being in prison. To resolve such disputes, Polymarket uses a decentralized arbitration system via UMA protocol. The process involves: 1. Proposal: Anyone can propose a market outcome by staking 750 USDC, earning 5 USDC if unchallenged. 2. Dispute: A 2-hour window allows challenges with a 750 USDC stake; successful challengers earn 250 USDC. 3. Discussion: A 48-hour period on UMA Discord for evidence and debate. 4. Voting: UMA token holders vote in two 24-hour phases (blind then public). Outcomes require >65% consensus and 5M tokens voted; otherwise, four re-votes occur before Polymarket intervention. 5. Settlement: Results are final and automatic. Unlike traditional courts, Polymarket’s system lacks separation between arbitrators and stakeholders—voters often hold market positions, creating conflicts of interest. This leads to herd mentality in discussions and non-transparent outcomes without explanatory rulings, preventing precedent formation. Thus, success on Polymarket hinges on deep rule interpretation, not just event prediction, exploiting gaps between reality and contractual wording.

marsbit2h ago

Why Do You Always Lose Money on Polymarket? Because You're Betting on News, While the Pros Read the Rules

marsbit2h ago

DeepSeek Funding: Liang Wenfeng's 'Realist' Pivot

DeepSeek, a leading Chinese AI company, has initiated its first external funding round, aiming to raise at least $300 million at a valuation of no less than $10 billion. This move marks a significant shift from its founder Liang Wenfeng’s previous idealistic stance of rejecting external capital to maintain independence. Despite strong financial backing from its parent company, quantitative trading firm幻方量化 (Huanfang Quant), which provided an estimated $700 million in revenue in 2025 alone, DeepSeek faces mounting challenges. Key issues include a 15-month gap in major model updates, delays in its flagship V4 release, and the loss of several core researchers to competitors offering significantly higher compensation. The company is also undergoing a strategic pivot by migrating its infrastructure from NVIDIA’s CUDA to Huawei’s Ascend platform, a move aligned with China’s push for technological self-reliance amid U.S. export controls. However, DeepSeek lags behind rivals like智谱AI and MiniMax—both now publicly listed—in areas such as product ecosystem, multimodal capabilities, and commercialization. The funding round, though relatively small in scale, is seen as a way to establish a market-validated valuation anchor, making employee stock options more competitive and facilitating talent retention. It also signals DeepSeek’s transition from a pure research-oriented organization to a commercially-driven player in the global AI ecosystem.

marsbit2h ago

DeepSeek Funding: Liang Wenfeng's 'Realist' Pivot

marsbit2h ago

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片