U.S. Lawmakers Push to Clarify Crypto Developer Liability Under Federal Law

TheNewsCryptoОпубликовано 2026-01-13Обновлено 2026-01-13

Введение

U.S. Senators Cynthia Lummis and Ron Wyden have reintroduced the bipartisan Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act to protect cryptocurrency developers from being wrongly classified as financial institutions or money transmitters. The bill clarifies that liability should be based on control of user funds, not merely writing or maintaining code. This addresses growing legal uncertainty and fear among developers, especially following recent Department of Justice cases involving privacy tools. Lawmakers argue that misapplying financial regulations to developers who don’t handle funds is unfair, stifles innovation, and could drive talent overseas. The legislation aims to safeguard open-source development and prevent overreach by ensuring only entities with actual control over assets face strict regulatory obligations.

Two U.S. senators, Cynthia Lummis and Ron Wyden, have reintroduced a bipartisan bill called the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act to protect cryptocurrency developers from being wrongly treated as banks or financial institutions under U.S. law.

This bill can help resolve the issue between U.S. law and cryptocurrency developers. Right now, the law is unclear about who counts and handles the money of the users. Because of this, some developers who only write the code and never handle the users’ money, or don’t even control wallets, are being treated as the money-handling company and being charged. This risk has grown after the recent DOJ cases involving privacy and self-custody tools, and many developers are in fear of building crypto tools.

Control, Not Code: Lawmakers Push to Shield Crypto Developers From Liability

The bill says that control matters a lot, not the code. If you only write or maintain software and you cannot access or control the funds, and you don’t have legal authority over assets, then you should not be treated as a money transmitter. Only companies that actually control funds should follow strict money laws.

The bill was urgently reintroduced because the issue became very serious. Developers have already been criminally charged, and this fear for the developers could push them out of the U.S., thus bringing slow innovations and breaking open-source development. So the lawmakers have realized this is dangerous and unfair, and they want to fix the rule before more damage happens.

Both Lummis and Wyden have played a major role in bringing this bill urgently. Lummis says that there is no use in regulating the developers like banks when they never handle the users’ money. Wyden warns that forcing developers to follow the exchange-level rules is technologically ignorant and harmful to privacy. Both argue that liability should follow actual control of funds.

This law helps to keep the crypto tools open and innovation alive, with developers safe. If the developers are afraid of building the tools, fewer wallets will be built, and there will be fewer innovations and more control by the big companies.

Highlighted Crypto News:

‌Red Candles Stack Up for OFFICIAL TRUMP (TRUMP): Will Sellers Tighten Their Grip?

TagsCryptoSenator

Связанные с этим вопросы

QWhat is the name of the bipartisan bill reintroduced by Senators Lummis and Wyden?

AThe Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act.

QAccording to the bill, what is the key factor that should determine if someone is treated as a money transmitter?

AActual control over the funds, not just writing or maintaining the code.

QWhy was the bill urgently reintroduced, according to the article?

ABecause developers have already been criminally charged, creating fear that could push innovation out of the U.S. and harm open-source development.

QWhat negative consequence could occur if developers are afraid to build crypto tools?

AFewer wallets and innovations would be built, leading to more control by big companies.

QWhich U.S. government agency's recent cases were mentioned as increasing the risk for developers?

AThe Department of Justice (DOJ).

Похожее

You Bet on the News, the Pros Read the Rules: The True Cognitive Gap in Losing Money on Polymarket

The article explains that the key to profiting on Polymarket, a prediction market platform, lies not just predicting real-world events correctly, but in meticulously understanding the specific rules that govern how each market will be resolved. It illustrates this with examples, such as a market on Venezuela's 2026 leader, where the official rules defining "officially holds" the office overruled the intuitive answer of who was in practical control. Other examples include debates over the definition of a "token" or what constitutes an "agreement." The core argument is that a "reality vs. rules" gap creates pricing discrepancies that savvy traders ("车头" or "whales") exploit. The platform has a formal dispute resolution process managed by UMA token holders to settle ambiguous outcomes. This process involves proposal submission, a challenge window, a discussion period, and a final vote. However, the article highlights a critical flaw in this system compared to a traditional court: the lack of separation between the arbiters (UMA voters) and the interested parties (traders with financial stakes in the outcome). This conflict of interest undermines the discussion phase, leads to herd mentality, and results in opaque final decisions without explanatory rulings. Consequently, the system lacks a body of precedent, making it difficult for users to learn from past disputes. The ultimate takeaway is that success on Polymarket requires a lawyer-like scrutiny of the rules to identify and capitalize on the cognitive gap between how events appear and how they are contractually defined for settlement.

marsbit1 ч. назад

You Bet on the News, the Pros Read the Rules: The True Cognitive Gap in Losing Money on Polymarket

marsbit1 ч. назад

Торговля

Спот
Фьючерсы
活动图片