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

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

The Impossible Trilemma Is Basically a Pseudo-Problem

The article argues that the core limitation of blockchain technology is not the scalability trilemma, but its fundamental lack of privacy, which acts as a barrier to institutional capital. It defines blockchain as a slow, expensive, shared computer whose primary value is "permissionlessness" (no administrator) and verifiable trust. While this is ideal for native financial assets like stable币, which now process trillions, two critical flaws remain for mainstream adoption: regulatory legitimacy and a default transparency that leaks all financial activity. The author contends that transparency is not a feature but a tax, quantified through MEV extraction, making the public ledger unusable for serious institutions. However, modern cryptography, specifically zero-knowledge proofs, now offers a solution: "provable privacy." This allows users to prove compliance (e.g., solvency, KYC) without revealing underlying data. This fusion of privacy and auditability resolves the transparency-compliant privacy-compliance dichotomy, enabling a purely upgraded system where transactions are verified but not broadcasted. Closing these flaws is presented as the essential bridge to onboard the next wave of trillions in capital.

marsbitHá 6h

The Impossible Trilemma Is Basically a Pseudo-Problem

marsbitHá 6h

The "Impossible Triad" Is Fundamentally a Pseudo-Problem

The article argues that blockchain's fundamental limitation is not the scalability trilemma (decentralization, scalability, security), which has been largely solved, but the lack of **privacy** and, until recently, clear **legitimacy**. Blockchain is described as a slow, expensive, globally shared computer whose core value is censorship resistance and verifiability. While ideal for native digital assets like money (e.g., stablecoins), its default transparency acts as a **tax**, exposing all transactions and enabling MEV extraction, which deters serious institutional capital. Simultaneously, its permissionless nature created regulatory ambiguity. The piece contends that **privacy** is the missing critical feature. It rejects the false choice between total transparency and complete anonymity. Modern cryptography (like zero-knowledge proofs) enables **compliant privacy**: users can prove facts (solvency, KYC status, compliance) without revealing the underlying sensitive data (specific holdings, identities). This preserves auditability for regulators and eliminates the leak of financial information. With recent regulatory progress (e.g., the GENIUS Act) addressing legitimacy, adding default, provably compliant privacy becomes a pure upgrade. It transforms blockchain from a costly, public ledger into a confidential settlement layer, finally bridging the gap to mainstream institutional and individual adoption of on-chain finance.

链捕手Há 6h

The "Impossible Triad" Is Fundamentally a Pseudo-Problem

链捕手Há 6h

Optical Chips: Collective Capacity Expansion

The global optical chip industry is experiencing a massive wave of expansion driven by surging AI data center demand. Major players across the US, Japan, Europe, and China are aggressively investing to ramp up production capacity. In the US, Coherent is expanding its 6-inch Indium Phosphide (InP) semiconductor fab in Texas, supported by CHIPS Act funding and a $2 billion strategic investment from NVIDIA. Lumentum is building a new factory for InP optical devices, and Nokia is scaling its advanced photonic chip packaging and testing capabilities. NVIDIA's investments aim to secure future supply of critical lasers and optical interconnect products for AI infrastructure. Japan's JX Advanced Metals, a leading InP substrate supplier, plans a multi-billion yen investment to increase its capacity 7-10 times, strengthening its grip on the crucial upstream materials market. In Europe, IQE and Tower Semiconductor settled a patent dispute and signed a multi-year InP epitaxial wafer supply agreement, highlighting that next-generation silicon photonics platforms will integrate high-performance InP components. STMicroelectronics and Sivers Semiconductors are also expanding silicon photonics production and partnerships. China is rapidly building out its domestic supply chain. Dongshan Precision's subsidiary, Source Photonics, announced a $12 billion project to expand optical chip and module production. Companies like Sanan Optoelectronics and Yunnan Germanium are scaling up InP chip manufacturing and substrate production, moving towards vertical integration from materials to modules. While debate continues around the exact future architecture—whether CPO (Co-Packaged Optics), NPO, or pluggables will dominate—analysts like Morgan Stanley argue the underlying driver is unchangeable: the explosive growth in bandwidth demand. This will inevitably increase the volume of optical engines, lasers, and related content per GPU, regardless of the final technical path. The competition for "more light" in the AI era has intensified into a global, full-chain capacity race.

marsbitHá 8h

Optical Chips: Collective Capacity Expansion

marsbitHá 8h

Stablecoins Finally Find Real Yield: An In-Depth Look at On-Chain Reinsurance Re | A Conversation with Re Founder Karan Saroya

Stablecoin Real Yield Found: A Deep Dive into On-Chain Reinsurance with Re's Karan Saroya As stablecoin supply exceeds $170 billion, the search for sustainable, non-speculative yield intensifies. Re, an on-chain reinsurance platform, provides an answer: connecting stablecoin capital to the trillion-dollar traditional reinsurance market. Re operates as a regulated reinsurer, accepting stablecoin deposits as collateral to back US insurance companies. These insurers pay premiums, generating yield that flows back to on-chain depositors. Currently supporting 35 insurers and underwriting $500 million, Re projects scaling to over $1 billion soon. Key insights from a Bankless podcast with founder Karan Saroya and investor Avichal of Electric Capital: 1. **Uncorrelated, Real-World Yield:** Re offers stablecoin holders access to reinsurance returns (targeting 12-14%+), an asset class entirely separate from crypto or equity markets. 2. **Operational Efficiency via Smart Contracts:** Re replaces traditional, labor-intensive capital fundraising with smart contracts, allowing a ~12-person team to compete with industry giants. 3. **Regulatory Leverage:** For every $1 of collateral, regulations allow backing $5-7 in written premiums. This leverage amplifies returns from the underlying risk-free rate. 4. **DeFi Integration:** Depositors receive receipt tokens, which can be used in protocols like Morpho for "looping," potentially pushing yields to 18-20%+. 5. **The "DeFi Mullet" Model:** A compliant front-end (regulated reinsurer) paired with a decentralized back-end (smart contracts, DeFi capital markets). 6. **RE Governance Token:** Modeled on Lloyd's of London, the token governs the central capital pool's allocation, counterparty acceptance, and parameters. 7. **Real Economic Impact:** Capital funds real-world productivity (factories, clinics, businesses) via insurance, moving beyond crypto's internal loops. The discussion highlights a pivotal moment: DeFi's supply-side infrastructure is now met by real demand for productive yield, potentially kickstarting a flywheel where vast on-chain stablecoin capital seeks these real-world returns.

链捕手Há 10h

Stablecoins Finally Find Real Yield: An In-Depth Look at On-Chain Reinsurance Re | A Conversation with Re Founder Karan Saroya

链捕手Há 10h

1996 or 1999? Walsh's First Test is 'How to View AI'

"1996 or 1999? Wall's First Big Test Is 'How to View AI'" Federal Reserve Chairman Wall's initial challenge is not whether to raise or cut rates, but a more fundamental judgment: what kind of boom is the current AI boom? This will determine the Fed's policy path and define his legacy. Economics is split between two opposing views, according to reporter Nick Timiraos. One sees imminent productivity gains that will increase supply and cool inflation, allowing the Fed to hold steady. The other argues that while productivity benefits are distant, demand shocks are here now, and waiting for data confirmation risks missing the intervention window, forcing sharper rate hikes later. Wall has signaled a leaning toward the first view, echoing 1996-era Alan Greenspan, who embraced strong, productivity-driven growth without fear of inflation. However, Wall faces a different macro environment than Greenspan did, with tariff pressures, expanding fiscal deficits, and diminishing globalization benefits, which could force more significant inflation pressures even if AI benefits materialize. Wall's logic, expressed before taking office, is that AI-driven productivity gains won't show in official data for years. If the Fed waits for confirmation, it might mistakenly tighten policy and choke off the very growth that could suppress inflation. This argues for using forward-looking narratives over lagging data. Chicago Fed President Austan Goolsbee presents a key counter-argument. He distinguishes between expected and unexpected productivity booms. A widely anticipated boom, like the current AI wave, can cause people to spend future wealth gains in advance, overheating the economy before productivity actually rises, thus requiring preemptive rate hikes. He cites rising costs for AI data centers as evidence of such overheating. Fed Governor Christopher Waller offers a rebuttal to Goolsbee, noting the "expected spending" mechanism only works if people can borrow against future income, which many households cannot do due to borrowing constraints. Wall also faces a paradox related to his desire to reduce the Fed's use of "forward guidance" (pre-announcing policy moves). This practice was established in 1999 when Greenspan began signaling hikes to avoid market shocks. If the economy follows a less optimistic path, Wall may be forced to choose between using the guidance he wants to abolish or risking market volatility by staying silent. The ultimate question defining Wall's first major test remains: Is this 1996 or 1999?

marsbitHá 11h

1996 or 1999? Walsh's First Test is 'How to View AI'

marsbitHá 11h

Trading

Spot

Futuros