Crypto Developers Could Get Long-Term Shield Under New Senate Bill

bitcoinistPublicado em 2026-01-14Última atualização em 2026-01-14

Resumo

US Senators Cynthia Lummis and Ron Wyden introduced the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act, a standalone bill to protect blockchain developers and non-custodial infrastructure providers from being classified as money transmitters. The legislation creates a safe harbor for those who write code or maintain networks without controlling user funds, meaning liability depends on custody of assets rather than software development. This aims to reduce legal risks for node operators and open-source developers. The move follows industry lobbying and delays in broader crypto market-structure legislation. While welcomed by many, some caution that clear definitions are needed to prevent loopholes and ensure the protection applies only to builders, not asset handlers.

US Senators Cynthia Lummis and Ron Wyden introduced a standalone measure that would protect blockchain developers and other non-custodial infrastructure providers from being treated as money transmitters solely for writing code or maintaining networks. The bill is being filed as the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act, a name that also appears in earlier House paperwork filed last year.

Crypto: Bill Aims To Protect Non-Custodial Developers

The draft would create a safe harbor for developers who do not control user funds, making liability turn on actual custody or control of assets rather than on the act of creating software. That change would mean node operators, protocol maintainers, and many open-source coders could avoid money-transmitter rules so long as they do not hold or direct users’ tokens.

Writing code is not the same as controlling money and developers who build blockchain infrastructure without touching user funds shouldn’t be treated like banks. @RonWyden and I are ensuring that won’t happen. pic.twitter.com/9zIgh07e0b

— Senator Cynthia Lummis (@SenLummis) January 12, 2026

Industry Pressure And A History Of Concern

Reports have disclosed months of lobbying from exchanges, developer groups, and advocacy coalitions that urged lawmakers to clarify this point. Those groups warned that without clear language, developers could face licensing and enforcement risks that would chill US-based development. The House version of the measure first appeared in May last year and set out similar safe-harbor text.

Total crypto market cap currently at $3.1 trillion. Chart: TradingView

Senate Markup Delayed As Negotiations Continue

Lawmakers have paused a larger Senate market-structure push while they work through a range of open issues, including stablecoin policy and yield rules. With that broader package pushed later into the month, sponsors moved the developer protections into a standalone bill to give that issue its own spotlight. Reports suggests the pause means Congress may act on the developer language sooner than the full market bill.

The US Senate. Image: Omar Chatriwala/Getty Images

What Developers And Advocates Are Saying

Some protocol teams and industry lawyers welcomed the step as a much-needed clarification, saying it would reduce legal uncertainty for projects that do not custody funds.

Others urged care, noting that clear definitions will be crucial to prevent loopholes and to make sure bad actors cannot hide behind the safe harbor. Coverage indicates sponsors emphasized the bill’s goal is narrow: protect those who build and maintain, not those who handle other people’s assets.

The proposal for a separate law is being introduced while there are still many uncertainties surrounding how cryptocurrencies will be regulated in the US. In the latter part of 2025 and into 2026, the crypto sector has demonstrated that it has a great deal of clout within political circles in Washington D.C.

There has been a significant increase in lobbying by large crypto-related businesses as legislators review various options for regulating this industry. Several reports have linked the current political environment to the legislative actions taken to regulate crypto in Congress, as well as how interest in legislative action has increased due to Trump’s administration.

Featured image from Unsplash, chart from TradingView

Perguntas relacionadas

QWhat is the main purpose of the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act introduced by Senators Lummis and Wyden?

AThe main purpose is to protect blockchain developers and non-custodial infrastructure providers from being treated as money transmitters solely for writing code or maintaining networks, by creating a safe harbor for those who do not control user funds.

QAccording to the bill, what determines liability for developers under the proposed safe harbor?

ALiability turns on actual custody or control of assets rather than on the act of creating software, meaning developers are protected as long as they do not hold or direct users' tokens.

QWhy did the developer protection measure become a standalone bill instead of part of a larger package?

AThe larger Senate market-structure push was paused to work on open issues like stablecoin policy, so sponsors moved the developer protections into a standalone bill to give it separate attention and potentially faster action.

QWhat concern do some industry lawyers have about the safe harbor provision?

ASome lawyers urge care, noting that clear definitions are crucial to prevent loopholes and ensure bad actors cannot hide behind the safe harbor to evade regulation.

QHow has the crypto industry demonstrated political influence in Washington D.C. according to the article?

AThe crypto sector has shown significant clout through increased lobbying by large crypto-related businesses and heightened legislative activity, with reports linking this to the current political environment and Trump's administration.

Leituras Relacionadas

Lowering Expectations for BTC's Next Bull Market

The author, Alex Xu, explains his decision to significantly reduce his Bitcoin holdings (from full to ~30% of his portfolio) during the current bull cycle, citing a lowered long-term outlook for BTC's price appreciation in the next cycle. He outlines six key reasons for this reduced expectation: 1. **Diminished Growth Drivers:** The narrative of exponential user adoption has largely played out with institutional ETF adoption. The next major growth phase—adoption by sovereign national reserves or central banks—seems unlikely in the near future. 2. **Personal Opportunity Cost:** More attractive investment opportunities have emerged in other assets, such as undervalued companies. 3. **Industry-Wide Contraction:** The broader crypto industry is struggling, with most Web3 business models (SocialFi, GameFi, DePIN) failing. This overall萧条 (depression) reduces the fundamental demand and consensus for Bitcoin. 4. **Strain on Major Buyer:** MicroStrategy, a major corporate buyer of BTC, faces rising financing expenses for its debt, which could slow its purchasing rate and create significant marginal pressure on the market. 5. **Increased Competition from Gold:** The emergence of "tokenized gold" has closed the functional gap (portability, divisibility) between physical gold and Bitcoin, offering a strong competitor in the non-sovereign store-of-value space. 6. **Security Budget Concerns:** The block reward halving continues to exacerbate the long-standing issue of funding Bitcoin's network security, with new fee source explorations like Ordinals and L2s largely failing. The author's decision to hold a significant (though reduced) position reflects a cautious, not bearish, outlook. He remains open to increasing his exposure if the fundamental reasons for his skepticism change or if new positive catalysts emerge.

marsbitHá 6m

Lowering Expectations for BTC's Next Bull Market

marsbitHá 6m

Prediction Markets Cannot Exist Without Insider Trading, But Insider Trading Is Killing Them

Prediction markets face a fundamental contradiction: they rely on insider trading to generate accurate prices, yet this same activity erodes public trust and threatens their survival. Recent scandals, such as a U.S. special forces member making $400,000 on Polymarket using classified information about a raid, highlight the severity of the issue. While platforms like Polymarket and Kalshi market themselves as venues where "everyone is an expert" and encourage informed trading, they also enforce policies against illegal insider trading. The core dilemma is that these markets depend on informed insiders for price efficiency but require uninformed retail participants to provide liquidity. If insider trading is too rampant, retail traders leave, perceiving the market as unfair. If restrictions are too strict, valuable information flow dries up, reducing the market’s predictive utility. The challenge is finding a balance that maintains both accuracy and perceived fairness—a task complicated by regulatory pressures and recurring scandals.

marsbitHá 12m

Prediction Markets Cannot Exist Without Insider Trading, But Insider Trading Is Killing Them

marsbitHá 12m

Can Iran 'Control' the Strait of Hormuz?

Iran has announced a comprehensive plan to assert control over the strategic Strait of Hormuz, a critical global oil shipping chokepoint. The proposed measures include requiring all vessels to obtain Iranian permission for passage, imposing fees for security, environmental protection, and navigation management—preferably paid in Iranian rials—and absolutely banning Israeli ships. Vessels from countries deemed hostile by Iran’s top security bodies may also be barred. Analysts suggest Iran’s motives are multifaceted: increasing pressure on the U.S. and Israel by leveraging control over oil transit to influence global prices and inflation; creating a new revenue stream, potentially exceeding $7.7 billion annually, to counter Western sanctions and support postwar reconstruction; and using transit permissions as bargaining chips in future negotiations, notably with the U.S. However, the plan faces significant practical and diplomatic challenges. Enforcing comprehensive interception and fee collection in the busy waterway, patrolled by international military forces, would be difficult. The U.S. has already countering with a blockade of Iranian ports and threats to intercept any ship paying fees, potentially strangling Iran’s oil exports and fee revenue. Broad international opposition, led by European and Gulf states, and legal controversies further complicate implementation. The proposal may ultimately serve more as a negotiating tactic than a feasible policy, with its execution remaining highly uncertain.

marsbitHá 1h

Can Iran 'Control' the Strait of Hormuz?

marsbitHá 1h

Vertically Integrated Capital Aggregators: How Does Web3 Build an Impregnable Moat?

"Vertical Integration Capital Aggregators: How Web3 Builds Unbreachable Moats" explores how leading Web3 protocols create competitive advantages by vertically integrating multiple ecosystem components. Unlike Web2 aggregators that focus on user demand or supplier commoditization, successful Web3 entities like Hyperliquid aggregate capital, liquidity, users, and distribution into a unified financial ecosystem. This integration allows for efficient capital deployment—Hyperliquid generates $0.30 in fees per $1 of TVL annually, compared to Aave's $0.05—while creating a defensible moat that is difficult to replicate across six simultaneous fronts. However, this model comes with risks: DeFi loses $0.50 to hacks for every $1 earned, pushing protocols toward partial centralization and closed systems for security and scalability. The token serves as a shared incentive layer, aligning stakeholders and driving value through mechanisms like buybacks. The article concludes that vertical integration, not capital itself, is the true moat, and that the industry is evolving toward pragmatic, partially centralized models to ensure economic growth and sustainability.

marsbitHá 1h

Vertically Integrated Capital Aggregators: How Does Web3 Build an Impregnable Moat?

marsbitHá 1h

Falsely Accused by AI and Jailed for 160 Days: American Woman Steps into the Execution Zone

Summary: Angela Lipps, a woman from Tennessee, was wrongfully imprisoned for 160 days after a facial recognition AI incorrectly identified her as a suspect in a bank fraud case in North Dakota. Despite her insistence that she had never been to the state, she was arrested in July 2025 and held without bail. She spent 108 days in a local jail before being transferred to North Dakota in October, where she was eventually cleared after her lawyer provided bank records proving she was buying pizza in Tennessee at the time of the crime. Her ordeal highlights a growing issue with AI-driven law enforcement errors. Similar cases include Robert Williams, detained for 30 hours in 2020, and Chris Gatlin, jailed for 17 months based on flawed AI matches. Systems like Clearview AI, used by over 3,000 U.S. law enforcement agencies, often rely on low-quality images and can produce inaccurate results. Human oversight failures exacerbate the problem, as officers sometimes skip verification steps, leading to wrongful arrests. While AI has improved policing efficiency, its errors have serious consequences, emphasizing the need for stricter regulations and human accountability in its use.

marsbitHá 2h