US Senate Judiciary Committee Pushes To Strip Developer Safeguards From Crypto Bill

TheNewsCryptoОпубліковано о 2026-01-19Востаннє оновлено о 2026-01-19

Анотація

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

TagsBlockchainLawUS Senate

Пов'язані питання

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.

Пов'язані матеріали

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.

marsbit40 хв тому

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

marsbit40 хв 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.

marsbit53 хв тому

The "Iron Rule" of Chip Equipment Is Being Broken

marsbit53 хв тому

Торгівля

Спот
Ф'ючерси
活动图片