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

Beyond the Stadium: The Profitable Games Surrounding the World Cup

"Beyond the Pitch: The Profit Game Around the World Cup" The FIFA World Cup transcends being a sporting spectacle, evolving into a massive global arena for speculation and profit-seeking. The 2026 tournament has amplified this dynamic, creating a multi-layered ecosystem of financial opportunism alongside the football. **Prediction markets** have surged into the mainstream. Platforms like Polymarket and Kalshi saw trading volumes for World Cup contracts soar, attracting new users with their financial trading model and high-profile, chain-based wealth stories that overshadow traditional sports betting in terms of growth and narrative. However, **traditional sportsbooks** remain the dominant force, leveraging established user habits, legal markets, and comprehensive product offerings to handle the vast majority of speculative wagers, with projections suggesting record-breaking betting volumes. Capital markets also react. **"Concept stocks"** in countries like South Korea and Japan experience volatile price swings based on team performance and anticipated fan spending on items like chicken, beer, and viewing parties, effectively becoming a stock market reflecting fan sentiment. The **ticket resale market** has become a sophisticated arena for arbitrage. Prices fluctuate wildly based on team draws and star power, with sellers sometimes listing tickets they don't yet own in a practice akin to short-selling, while FIFA's own "Right to Buy" tokens add another layer of speculative trading. **Collectibles and merchandise** offer another avenue. Panini sticker albums, with their inherent scarcity and nostalgic value, can become high-value collectibles. Limited-edition or locally themed jerseys command significant premiums on secondary markets, and even counterfeit vendors profit from fans' desire for affordable match-day identity. The **cryptocurrency** space has seen a frenzy of speculative, unauthorized World Cup-themed meme coins on chains like Solana. These tokens, often exploiting team names and player imagery, experience extreme pump-and-dump cycles, creating stories of massive gains for a few early entrants and steep losses for many others. Finally, an entire industry thrives on **providing information and tools** to other speculators. Developers create platforms like SeatSidekick to track ticket inventory and prices, while paid Telegram groups and subscriptions sell betting tips and predictions, monetizing the widespread desire for an informational edge. In essence, the World Cup has become a compressed, global laboratory for speculation. While the games determine champions on the field, a parallel, complex network of financial transactions—spanning prediction contracts, bets, stocks, tickets, collectibles, crypto, and information services—settles its own scores in the global market.

marsbit22 хв тому

Beyond the Stadium: The Profitable Games Surrounding the World Cup

marsbit22 хв тому

How Does Codex Use a Computer? Three Entry Points and Permission Boundaries

This article explains the three primary methods for Codex to interact with a computer, each with distinct use cases, permission boundaries, and trust levels. **1. Computer Use:** This offers the broadest access, allowing Codex to visually control and interact with the graphical user interface of authorized macOS/Windows apps, system settings, and even iOS simulators. It's ideal for tasks lacking APIs or structured tools, such as operating legacy software or multi-app workflows. However, it's the slowest method and has the widest permission scope, requiring careful supervision for sensitive actions. **2. Chrome Extension:** This grants Codex access to the user's logged-in Chrome browser state, including cookies, profiles, and open tabs. It's best for tasks requiring user identity across websites like Gmail, LinkedIn, Salesforce, or internal dashboards. Its key advantage is multi-tab control for complex workflows. While more powerful for browser-based tasks than Computer Use, it carries higher sensitivity as actions are performed under the user's identity. **3. In-App Browser:** This is a browser isolated within the Codex thread, separate from the user's personal browsing data. It excels in web development and debugging scenarios—previewing local servers, testing responsive layouts, or annotating designs directly on the page. Its isolation is a strength for development but a limitation for tasks requiring login sessions. The core principle is to choose the narrowest, safest, and most structured interface for the task. Use plugins or MCPs first, resort to visual control (Computer Use) only for GUI-dependent tasks, employ the Chrome extension for identity-reliant browser work, and prefer the In-App Browser for isolated development. **Appshots** are clarified as a fourth, complementary tool for *inputting* context—capturing a screenshot of a window to point Codex to something—rather than a method for Codex to *act*. Together, this layered approach highlights a key to AI agent productization: not granting unlimited permissions, but constraining them within clear boundaries for specific tasks while preserving user oversight.

marsbit1 год тому

How Does Codex Use a Computer? Three Entry Points and Permission Boundaries

marsbit1 год тому

The "Iron Rule" of Chip Equipment Is Being Broken

For years, the semiconductor equipment industry followed an unwritten "iron rule": suppliers offered steep discounts for new tool introductions (Design-in) and faced consistent price pressure during repeat orders, especially during market downturns. This long-standing buyer's market dynamic is now being upended. Recently, SK Hynix's primary equipment suppliers have reportedly requested a 3-4% price *increase*, a nearly unprecedented move. This shift is driven by a severe supply-demand imbalance fueled by the AI compute boom. Securing equipment has become an urgent arms race as chipmakers' expansion speed dictates their ability to fulfill massive AI chip orders. Key areas feeling the strain include: **TCB (Thermal Compression Bonding) Equipment:** Demand is exploding, driven by the simultaneous needs of HBM4 memory stacking, AI chip Chip-on-Substrate (C2S), and logic Chiplet Chip-on-Wafer (C2W) packaging. Players like Hanmi Semiconductor, Hanwha Semitech, and ASMPT are receiving major orders. While hybrid bonding is seen as the future, TCB remains the pragmatic choice for HBM4 mass production, with its lifecycle extended by relaxed specifications and ongoing technological upgrades. **Test Equipment Bottlenecks:** Ironically, AI-driven shortages are now crippling test equipment manufacturing. Critical components like FPGAs, Driver ICs, and CPUs face severe shortages and extended lead times (up to 52 weeks for FPGAs), as AI data center and server vendors prioritize supply. This creates a paradoxical cycle: AI chip shortages drive fab expansion, which requires more test equipment, whose production is delayed because its key parts are diverted to make AI chips. The industry is entering a broad, AI-powered upcycle. SEMI forecasts global semiconductor equipment sales to hit a record $156 billion by 2027, fueled by investment in advanced logic/foundry, HBM-driven DRAM, and advanced packaging (like CoWoS). Major players like TSMC, SK Hynix, and Micron are aggressively ramping capital expenditure. In conclusion, leading equipment vendors are no longer just selling tools; they are selling the critical capability to deliver AI-era capacity. Pricing power is shifting decisively to those with indispensable technology in key process nodes like advanced logic, HBM, and advanced packaging, rewriting the industry's traditional power structure.

marsbit2 год тому

The "Iron Rule" of Chip Equipment Is Being Broken

marsbit2 год тому

Торгівля

Спот
Ф'ючерси
活动图片