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

TheNewsCryptoPublicado em 2026-01-19Última atualização em 2026-01-19

Resumo

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

Perguntas relacionadas

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.

Leituras Relacionadas

Agents Take Over Traffic Distribution Power: What Are Tencent, ByteDance, and Alibaba Competing For?

In the race to dominate the AI era's entry point, China's tech giants—Tencent, ByteDance, and Alibaba—are aggressively deploying AI Agents to control the future of traffic distribution. Alibaba is pursuing a dual-track "closed loop + openness" strategy. Its Qianwen app is evolving into a super-Agent integrated across its ecosystem (Taobao, Alipay, etc.) to handle complex tasks like travel planning. Concurrently, it is opening its platform to external brands (Luckin Coffee, KFC) and has launched a B2B Agent platform, "Wukong," targeting enterprise automation. Its other flagship, Quark, aims to be an "AI super search box" for information and tasks. ByteDance is executing an omnipresent "sprawl strategy." Its Doubao app boasts over 300 million monthly active users and is evolving into a default AI entry point for daily life, with plans for paid versions and e-commerce integration. Its core weapon is the Kouzi platform, a visual "AI assembly factory" for developers to build custom Agents. ByteDance is also pushing hardware integration, collaborating on AI phones and developing smart glasses to embed Doubao everywhere. Tencent is playing its long-held "ultimate card" by quietly embedding an AI Agent directly into WeChat. This Agent, accessible via a swipe, can understand user commands and automatically execute tasks by calling upon WeChat's millions of mini-programs (e.g., finding and ordering coffee). This leverages WeChat's unparalleled 1.4-billion-user ecosystem to position the app as an AI-powered "service operating system," a move that could dramatically reshape the competitive landscape. The core battleground is shifting from competing for "user screen time" to competing to be the "default execution layer" for user intent. The business model is evolving from an "attention economy" to an "intent economy," where the Agent that can most efficiently fulfill a user's need gains control over service access and token flow. This represents a fundamental change in how users connect with digital services, making the fight for the Agent入口 (entry point) a pivotal moment for redefining industry leadership in the AI age.

marsbitHá 53m

Agents Take Over Traffic Distribution Power: What Are Tencent, ByteDance, and Alibaba Competing For?

marsbitHá 53m

From Banning Doubao to Embracing Honor: Why Did WeChat Suddenly 'Change Its Face'?

The article explores the sudden shift in WeChat's strategy towards AI assistants from mobile phone manufacturers, transitioning from strict opposition to active collaboration. For over a year, WeChat fiercely resisted attempts by phone AI assistants (like ByteDance's Doubao in late 2025) to control its features via GUI automation ("simulated clicking"), citing security and data control concerns. This stance created a significant barrier for system-level AI integration. Now, Tencent has initiated A2A (Agent-to-Agent) partnerships with major phone brands like Honor, Xiaomi, OPPO, and vivo. This model allows a phone's system AI (e.g., Honor's YOYO) to parse a user's voice command and send a structured request directly to WeChat's own internal AI agent via secure APIs. WeChat then executes the action (e.g., sending a message) and returns the result. The article attributes Tencent's "change of face" to strategic pressure. While leading in social app usage, Tencent trails rivals like ByteDance and Alibaba in standalone AI app popularity. WeChat, with its vast mini-program ecosystem, is Tencent's key asset for an AI comeback. The upcoming WeChat AI agent aims to handle tasks like booking and payments within the app. However, phone system assistants remain the primary AI entry point for most users. The A2A collaboration allows Tencent to extend WeChat's AI reach to this crucial system layer while maintaining control over its core functions and data. For phone manufacturers, embracing A2A is a pragmatic move. The GUI route proved unviable due to WeChat's blocks. A2A offers a compliant path to integrate a vital service, enhancing their AI assistants' usefulness. It allows them to focus on developing their own AI ecosystems for other services while cooperating on WeChat access. The collaboration is framed as a mutual, strategic necessity: Tencent gains a distribution channel, and manufacturers gain a key functionality. The partnership relies on a "dual authorization" mechanism for security, requiring both user and app consent for each action. While questions about long-term data privacy practices remain, experts note A2A is more secure and compliant than GUI automation. Ultimately, this cooperation is seen as a tentative, calculated truce. Tencent's long-term goal is to make WeChat an AI-powered "service OS." Phone manufacturers aim to make their system AI the central user interface. Their paths may converge or clash in the future, but for now, the A2A deal represents the opening chapter in the battle for the AI-era user入口, driven by necessity and strategic calculus on both sides.

marsbitHá 2h

From Banning Doubao to Embracing Honor: Why Did WeChat Suddenly 'Change Its Face'?

marsbitHá 2h

Trading

Spot
Futuros
活动图片