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

TheNewsCryptoОпубліковано о 2026-01-13Востаннє оновлено о 2026-01-13

Анотація

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

Пов'язані питання

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).

Пов'язані матеріали

XRP Reversal Setup Forms Around Harmonic Pattern And Key Support Zone

XRP is trading at a critical technical support zone, according to a June 20 TradingView analysis. This area combines multiple layers of confluence, including the 0.618 Fibonacci retracement level and the point of control for the current range. Such convergence can intensify the battle between buyers and sellers at this level. The analysis suggests this support could form the basis for a broader harmonic reversal pattern. While not a guarantee, such setups provide a structured framework for identifying potential trend changes, invalidation points, and price targets. For the reversal thesis to gain credibility, XRP needs a decisive bullish reaction from this zone—specifically, a sustained bounce with volume that reclaims nearby resistance, not just a brief wick. Failure to hold support or repeated tests of the area would weaken the bullish argument. The setup is notable but requires confirmation from market price action.

bitcoinist3 хв тому

XRP Reversal Setup Forms Around Harmonic Pattern And Key Support Zone

bitcoinist3 хв тому

Vitalik's Algorithmic Stablecoin Vision: Interpreting the Mechanism and Challenges from an Options Perspective

Vitalik Buterin's recent algorithmic stablecoin proposal envisions using an option-like mechanism to create a stablecoin without the liquidation risks inherent in traditional collateralized debt position (CDP) models. The design splits one unit of ETH into two components: a 'stable' leg (P) that maintains value up to a certain strike price, and an 'upside' leg (N) that captures any appreciation above that price. Together, they always sum to one ETH, eliminating the need for debt or liquidation mechanisms. From an options perspective, the stable leg essentially functions as a synthetic, covered call position. However, significant challenges exist. For the stable asset to maintain its peg, it must continuously roll deep in-the-money call options, leading to potential rollover slippage, predictable trading paths vulnerable to front-running, and liquidity issues. Crucially, the system's scalability depends on a constant demand for the upside leg—a form of leveraged ETH long position without funding rates or liquidation risk. It's unclear if such persistent, specific demand will materialize from speculators or market makers who have simpler alternatives like perpetual swaps. The author, drawing from experience with Rysk, argues that DeFi options have struggled as standalone trading products due to complexity and fragmented liquidity. Their potential lies instead as foundational infrastructure underpinning more complex financial primitives like stablecoins, structured yields, or index products—transforming from a direct product into a core pricing and risk distribution engine for the next generation of on-chain finance.

marsbit17 хв тому

Vitalik's Algorithmic Stablecoin Vision: Interpreting the Mechanism and Challenges from an Options Perspective

marsbit17 хв тому

SpaceX, AI, and XRP: Why the Next Wealth Transfer Might Be Different?

The article posits that the global economy is transitioning into a new phase of infrastructure investment. Capital, facing slowing traditional growth engines, is flowing towards emerging foundational systems. This includes space infrastructure (exemplified by SpaceX), AI computing power, satellite networks, data centers, and global payment systems. A key driver is a potential new commodity supercycle fueled by industrial demand from these sectors. Concurrently, the role of blockchain is evolving from speculative assets to a critical settlement layer for the future economy. Digital assets like XRP and XLM, focused on payments and interoperability, are highlighted as potential rails for cross-border settlement, tokenized assets, and machine-to-machine (AI Agent) transactions. The narrative connects figures like Ripple's Jed McCaleb to space ventures, suggesting convergence. The argument emphasizes a shift from speculative narratives to utility-driven value. As AI and space commerce generate new economic activity, and regulatory clarity improves, blockchain networks may underpin real-time value transfer. The conclusion urges investors to consider which networks will form the backbone of this integrated next-generation economic infrastructure.

marsbit1 год тому

SpaceX, AI, and XRP: Why the Next Wealth Transfer Might Be Different?

marsbit1 год тому

GPT-5.6 Countdown: Abandon the Illusion of a Single API, Computational Iteration Can't Outpace a Single Page of Compliance

In mid-June, three seemingly independent industry events—the compliance-driven throttling of Fable 5, the open-sourcing of GLM-5.2, and the leaked release timeline for GPT-5.6—are pushing the global AI industry toward a watershed moment. These shifts signal a fundamental restructuring of the industry's underlying logic. First, **"usability" has substantially overtaken "advanced capabilities"** as the primary weight, pushing the global large language model (LLM) supply chain into a "dual-track" phase of controlled closed-source and local open-source coexistence. Second, **the competitive moats of closed-source giants are shifting**. Their technical focus is moving from "language intelligence" toward "spatial intelligence (world models)"—a domain heavily reliant on computing power. Third, faced with常态化 transnational compliance risks, **a "model-agnostic" decoupled design has become a survival necessity for application-layer developers to maintain business continuity.** The article details how Anthropic's Fable 5, despite its advanced engineering feats, was restricted for non-U.S. citizens within 72 hours of launch, highlighting how geopolitical compliance can instantly limit even the most advanced models. In response, the open-source camp, exemplified by Zhipu AI's MIT-licensed GLM-5.2, is gaining market share by offering stable performance improvements and significant cost advantages (up to 70% savings for enterprises), while achieving full adaptation with domestic semiconductor platforms. Meanwhile, closed-source leaders like OpenAI are pivoting. The anticipated GPT-5.6 reportedly shifts focus from language to spatial intelligence and world models, aiming to rebuild a generational gap in areas like 3D understanding, simulation, and industrial design that demand immense compute. The core conclusion is that the LLM supply chain's logic has changed. Enterprises must now evaluate infrastructure based on a composite of technical performance and policy compliance. For developers, complete reliance on a single closed-source API poses unacceptable risk. Implementing a truly model-agnostic architecture—enabling swift switches to compliant, locally deployable open-source alternatives—is no longer just good practice but a fundamental baseline for business continuity.

marsbit3 год тому

GPT-5.6 Countdown: Abandon the Illusion of a Single API, Computational Iteration Can't Outpace a Single Page of Compliance

marsbit3 год тому

Is the 'Token Subsidy War' Among AI Giants Almost Over?

The article discusses the ongoing "token subsidy war" among AI giants like OpenAI and Anthropic, questioning whether it's nearing its end. It reveals that current AI subscription prices are heavily subsidized, with some plans offering tokens at up to 70 times the actual cost to attract and retain heavy users, especially developers and enterprises. This strategy mirrors past internet-era subsidy battles, but with a key difference: AI tokens lack "lock-in" effects. Unlike ride-hailing or food delivery apps, users can easily switch between AI providers as APIs become standardized, making it difficult for companies to raise prices post-subsidy. The piece highlights a structural asymmetry in the competition. Giants like Google, with massive advertising revenue, can afford to subsidize tokens indefinitely, akin to using "tokens as a weapon." In contrast, venture-backed companies like OpenAI and Anthropic face pressure to become profitable, especially as they approach IPO. The article cites Google Ventures founder Bill Maris, who suggests Google could slash token prices by 80%, putting immense pressure on competitors. Two potential endgames are presented: the "internet service" model (subsidize, monopolize, then raise prices) and the "utility" model (tokens become a standardized, low-margin commodity like electricity). Given the low switching costs, the latter seems more likely. The competition may not have a single winner but could instead accelerate AI's evolution into a foundational, infrastructure-level technology, akin to a public utility. For now, users continue to benefit from heavily subsidized token costs.

marsbit3 год тому

Is the 'Token Subsidy War' Among AI Giants Almost Over?

marsbit3 год тому

Торгівля

Спот
Ф'ючерси
活动图片