SEC’s Crypto Advocate Says Blockchain Code Is Protected By The Constitution

bitcoinist2026-06-05 tarihinde yayınlandı2026-06-05 tarihinde güncellendi

Özet

SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce argued that publishing open-source blockchain code is a protected activity under the First Amendment and developers should not be automatically liable as securities intermediaries for how others use their software. She emphasized that liability should fall on those who engage in unlawful conduct, not the tool creators. Her remarks reflect a broader regulatory shift at the SEC under Chair Paul Atkins, moving away from regulation by enforcement. The agency's Crypto Task Force is reviewing how existing securities laws, designed for traditional intermediaries, apply to decentralized systems. Recent SEC guidance also suggested some platforms accessing decentralized protocols may not qualify as traditional brokers. The SEC's strategic plan through 2030 indicates blockchain and crypto assets remain a long-term priority as potentially transformative technologies for financial infrastructure.

A federal securities regulator is drawing a line between writing blockchain code and being responsible for how that code gets used — and the distinction could reshape how the government treats software developers in the decentralized finance space.

Broader Regulatory Shift Behind The Remarks

Hester Peirce, a commissioner at the US Securities and Exchange Commission, made the case Tuesday at the IC3 Blockchain Camp at Princeton University that publishing open-source blockchain software is a protected activity under the First Amendment.

She argued that developers who release DeFi code should not be automatically classified as securities intermediaries just because other people use what they built.

Legal liability, she said, should fall on those who actually engage in unlawful conduct — not on the people who wrote the underlying tools.

Peirce’s remarks fit into a wider rethinking underway at the SEC since Chair Paul Atkins took the helm.

Source: SEC

The agency has been pulling back from what Atkins has described as regulation by enforcement, with its Crypto Task Force now reviewing how existing securities laws apply to digital assets and decentralized systems.

Peirce, a long-standing voice for clearer rules in the crypto space, has been central to that push.

Rules Built For A Different World

She pointed to the SEC’s rulebook as evidence of the problem. The agency’s regulations were designed around intermediaries — brokers, dealers, exchanges, clearinghouses, transfer agents, investment advisers, and investment companies.

Peirce questioned whether those same rules make sense when applied to distributed blockchain networks that exist for purposes well beyond securities transactions.

Her comments came weeks after SEC staff issued separate guidance addressing broker-dealer registration requirements for certain user interfaces.

BTCUSD now trading at $62,332. Chart: TradingView

That guidance indicated some front-end websites and software platforms that provide access to decentralized protocols may not qualify as brokers under the traditional legal definition — a signal that the agency is rethinking how far its existing categories can stretch.

Digital Assets As Long-Term Priority

The SEC has also signaled that crypto and blockchain technology will remain a focus for years ahead. In its draft Strategic Plan through fiscal 2030, the agency described blockchain and crypto assets as technologies with the potential to reshape America’s financial infrastructure.

Taken together, the staff guidance, the strategic plan, and Peirce’s speech at Princeton paint a picture of an agency trying to redraw boundaries that were never clearly set.

Featured image from Pixabay, chart from TradingView

İlgili Sorular

QAccording to SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce, what activity related to blockchain software is protected under the First Amendment?

AHester Peirce stated that publishing open-source blockchain software is a protected activity under the First Amendment.

QWhat key distinction is Hester Peirce drawing regarding blockchain code developers and legal liability?

AShe is drawing a distinction between writing blockchain code and being responsible for how it is used, arguing that legal liability should fall on those who engage in unlawful conduct, not necessarily on the developers who created the underlying tools.

QWhat broader regulatory shift at the SEC does Peirce's speech fit into?

AHer remarks fit into a wider rethinking at the SEC, led by Chair Paul Atkins, which is moving away from regulation by enforcement. The agency's Crypto Task Force is reviewing how existing securities laws apply to digital assets and decentralized systems.

QWhat recent SEC guidance suggests the agency is rethinking the application of traditional broker-dealer rules?

ARecent SEC staff guidance indicated that some front-end websites and software platforms providing access to decentralized protocols may not qualify as brokers under the traditional legal definition.

QHow does the SEC's draft Strategic Plan through fiscal 2030 characterize blockchain and crypto assets?

AThe SEC's draft Strategic Plan described blockchain and crypto assets as technologies with the potential to reshape America's financial infrastructure, signaling they will remain a long-term priority.

İlgili Okumalar

Apple Also Has to Pay Rent Now

Apple Pays Rent Too: The Two-Way Flow of "Traffic Tax" and "AI Capability Rent" Between Tech Giants For over two decades, Google has paid Apple an estimated $20 billion annually to remain the default search engine on Safari, a "traffic tax" for a critical user entry point. However, in 2026, the direction of this cash flow partially reversed. Apple agreed to pay Google roughly $1 billion per year to license its Gemini AI models, as Apple's own models reportedly struggled with complex tasks. This creates a unique dynamic: Apple acts as the "landlord" in the established search ecosystem, collecting rent from Google for access. Simultaneously, in the emerging AI arena, Apple becomes the "tenant," paying Google for access to cutting-edge AI capabilities it cannot currently match internally. While Apple claims its new models are "distilled" from Gemini outputs and contain "not a drop" of Google's original code, core dependencies remain. Its knowledge base is refined using Gemini's outputs, and its most powerful cloud model runs on Google's infrastructure. Apple has structured the deal as non-exclusive, allowing it to theoretically switch AI suppliers—a hedge against over-reliance. The future hinges on whether advanced AI models become a commodity (cheap and abundant) or remain a concentrated, scarce resource (expensive and controlled by few). Apple is betting on the former, leveraging its massive device ecosystem to be a powerful, choosy customer. If the latter proves true, its bargaining power could erode. This power dynamic is extending to developers. Apple, Google, and WeChat are all pushing for apps to expose their core functions as standardized "actions" or "intents" that their respective AI assistants (Siri, Gemini, WeChat AI) can directly call. The new scarce resource is no longer just app store visibility, but "being selected by the AI." The currency of "rent" has changed from a 30% revenue share to ceding control over how users interact with an app's functions.

marsbit53 dk önce

Apple Also Has to Pay Rent Now

marsbit53 dk önce

Missed the SpaceX IPO? WEEX's "First Trade Protection" Lets You Experience US Stock Trading Risk-Free.

With the excitement around SpaceX's recent public listing reigniting interest in the US stock market, Chinese investors face significant challenges accessing compliant and convenient trading channels following regulatory actions against major online brokers. This article explores the available options, highlighting their risks and limitations. Traditional paths for US stock investments remain problematic. Qualified Domestic Institutional Investor (QDII) and Listed Open-Ended Fund (LOF) products, while compliant, suffer from high fees, significant purchase premiums, and a very limited selection of assets. Small, unregulated offshore brokers pose substantial risks, including potential insolvency. While secure, VIP accounts at banks in Hong Kong or Singapore require high minimum deposits (often 1-2 million RMB) and in-person visits, placing them out of reach for most retail investors. The article positions cryptocurrency exchanges, specifically their TradFi (traditional finance on-chain) offerings, as a compelling alternative. Platforms like WEEX are noted for providing access to a wide range of US stocks and ETFs, including SpaceX (SPCXON), through tokenized assets. This method offers advantages such as a single account for both crypto and traditional assets, USDT-based settlement avoiding fiat complexities, flexible leverage, and robust risk management. To attract users, WEEX is promoting a "First Trade Guarantee" campaign. Running from June 15 to July 8 (UTC+8), it features a $30,000 prize pool. Users who trade $500 worth of US stock contracts can qualify for a guarantee on their first eligible trade: 100% loss coverage up to $30 or a 20% bonus on profits up to $30. The campaign is presented as a low-risk opportunity for both crypto natives and traditional investors to experience US stock trading.

marsbit54 dk önce

Missed the SpaceX IPO? WEEX's "First Trade Protection" Lets You Experience US Stock Trading Risk-Free.

marsbit54 dk önce

How Difficult is Chip Making? A Division Error Costs 475 Million Dollars

How Hard Is It to Make a Chip? A Division Error Cost $475 Million Chip expert Shi Kan, a researcher at the Chinese Academy of Sciences and a popular tech creator, explains the immense challenges of chip development. Chips are foundational to modern technology, but their creation is extraordinarily difficult. The journey from sand to a functional chip involves complex design and manufacturing, but a critical bottleneck is verification—ensuring the design works flawlessly before costly production. A single, undetected bug can have catastrophic consequences, as illustrated by the infamous 1994 Intel Pentium FDIV bug. A flaw in the floating-point division unit forced a recall costing $475 million. Unlike software, chips cannot be easily patched after manufacture, making "first-time success" paramount. However, industry surveys show only 24% of chip projects achieve this; over three-quarters require at least one costly re-spin due to design flaws. Verification has thus become the dominant phase, consuming up to 70% of the design cycle. The core challenge is a "verification impossible triangle" between high performance, good debuggability, and low cost. Exhaustively verifying a modern CPU core could take 15,000 years with software simulation, or 30 years with advanced hardware emulation—timeframes utterly impractical for development. Despite being essential, verification is often seen as unglamorous "dirty work," receiving less academic attention than fields like AI. Shi and his team are tackling this by developing an agile verification research framework called ENCORE, based on FPGA technology, to improve verification efficiency and debug capability. Beyond research, Shi engages in public science communication through long-form video content, aiming to demystify chip technology, AI, and computer science. He argues for the value of pursuing "hard and long-term" endeavors, whether in the meticulous world of chip verification or in creating substantive educational content, believing such sustained effort is likely the right path forward.

marsbit1 saat önce

How Difficult is Chip Making? A Division Error Costs 475 Million Dollars

marsbit1 saat önce

İşlemler

Spot
Futures
活动图片