Two senators have launched a brief invoice with an unusually large ambition: to cease US legislation from treating individuals who write and publish blockchain software program as in the event that they have been working a shadow funds firm.
The proposal, titled the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act of 2026, goals to make clear that “non-controlling” builders and infrastructure suppliers (i.e., those that don’t have the authorized proper or unilateral capability to maneuver different folks’s funds) shouldn’t be swept into the authorized bucket reserved for cash transmitters.
It’s an argument crypto has been making for years, sadly, typically within the summary language of decentralization and autonomy.
However the stakes have develop into tougher to disregard. Prosecutors have examined aggressive theories of legal responsibility in high-profile circumstances involving non-custodial instruments, and builders have watched as a patchwork of federal guidelines and state licensing regimes turned compliance right into a guessing sport.
In their very own 2024 letter to Lawyer Basic Merrick Garland, Sens. Cynthia Lummis and Ron Wyden warned {that a} broad interpretation of money-transmission legislation “threatens to criminalize People providing non-custodial crypto asset software program providers.”
The brand new invoice tries to show that warning right into a rule.
Related Reading Zcash and privacy protocols face a “do-or-die” SEC meeting that determines if developers are personally liable for code
With Samourai’s November sentencing and Tornado Cash’s mixed verdict, the SEC’s Dec. 15 privacy roundtable lands in a new phase for wallet privacy and exchange compliance.
Dec 6, 2025 · Gino Matos
The deeper story is that outdated regulatory structure, written for Western Union-era wiring and pay as you go playing cards, is straining to map itself onto open-source code, decentralized networks, and software program that can be utilized with out the writer ever touching buyer funds.
When code turns into conduct
To grasp why a developer would possibly care about being labeled a “cash transmitter,” you must begin with how the US polices funds.
On the federal stage, FinCEN, the Treasury bureau accountable for anti-money-laundering (AML) guidelines, treats many fee intermediaries as cash providers companies (MSBs).
MSBs should register, run AML applications, file suspicious exercise studies, and maintain information.
FinCEN’s 2019 steerage lays out the precept in plain phrases: Cash transmission entails accepting and transmitting “worth that substitutes for foreign money,” and it doesn’t matter whether or not the worth is moved via a financial institution wire, an app, or a blockchain transaction.
Layered on high is a felony statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1960, that makes it an offense to knowingly function an unlicensed cash transmitting enterprise.
That “unlicensed” piece could be triggered in a number of methods: by failing to register federally when required, by violating state licensing necessities, or by transmitting funds linked to illegal exercise.
States matter right here greater than many outsiders understand. Even when a enterprise believes it’s exterior federal MSB guidelines, state money-transmitter licensing can nonetheless chew, and it may be costly, gradual, and inconsistent.
Some states interpret their statutes broadly, whereas others supply clearer exemptions.
For a startup that touches buyer funds, that is painful and in the end acquainted.
Related Reading Vibe coding, no-code, and the new rules of web3 development
Eric Chen and the Injective team are using vibe coding to remap how software gets created, built, and shipped in web3.
Nov 23, 2025 · Christina Comben
However for a developer who publishes open-source pockets code, runs a node service, or maintains infrastructure different folks use, the concept they is perhaps compelled into the identical licensing regime as a remittance store feels each absurd and existential.
That pressure has been on show within the authorized fights round privateness instruments and DeFi.
The US Justice Division’s prosecution of Twister Money co-founder Roman Storm helped crystallize a worry that has hovered over crypto for a decade: that writing software program may very well be handled as working a monetary enterprise, even the place the software program itself doesn’t maintain buyer cash.
The Justice Division has argued that the service functioned like a cash transmitter and will have applied compliance controls.
Storm’s aspect has emphasised the autonomy of the code and the dearth of custody over customers’ funds.
The case did nothing to resolve the coverage debate, appearing as an alternative as gasoline to an already roaring hearth.
A jury delivered a blended consequence in 2025, convicting Storm on an unlicensed money-transmission conspiracy cost whereas deadlocking or acquitting on extra severe counts.
Related Reading Jury convicts Roman Storm on unlicensed money transmission; hung on laundering, not guilty on sanctions
Following a brief deadlock, the jury found Storm guilty of conspiring to operate an unlicensed money transmitting business.
Aug 6, 2025 · Gino Matos
Crypto advocates learn the outcome as a warning flare for builders of non-custodial programs.
Towards that backdrop, Lummis and Wyden’s invoice is greatest understood as a bid to attract a vivid line between two worlds: software program publishing and funds custody.
The “non-controlling” line
The invoice itself is compact, coming in at simply 5 pages, but it surely’s dense with definitions, as a result of definitions are the place regulation lives.
First, it defines who counts as a coated “developer or supplier”: primarily, anybody who creates or publishes software program that facilitates a distributed ledger or supplies upkeep to it, or gives a service related to a distributed ledger.
It additionally defines “distributed ledger service” broadly sufficient to incorporate programs that allow customers to ship, obtain, trade, or retailer digital property.
Then it introduces the important thing idea: a “non-controlling” developer or supplier.
The invoice’s core declare is that when you don’t management the property, can’t unilaterally transfer them, and don’t have the authorized proper to grab them, you shouldn’t be handled as a cash transmitter for the needs of federal cash transmission legal guidelines.
In observe, that’s an try to formalize a distinction regulators already lean towards, however typically go away fuzzy in software.
FinCEN’s 2019 steerage notes that an individual performing a sure function in creating or promoting a software program software could be completely different from the individual utilizing the appliance to just accept and transmit worth.
The compliance obligation attaches to the transmitter, not essentially the toolmaker.
Why isn’t that sufficient? As a result of FinCEN steerage is just not the identical as a statutory secure harbor.
Steerage could be reinterpreted, narrowed, or just ignored by a distinct company in a distinct context.
Builders additionally fear about what occurs when federal ambiguity meets state licensing statutes, or when felony prosecutors check expansive readings of what it means to “conduct” a cash transmitting enterprise.
That’s why the 2024 Lummis-Wyden letter leaned on the time period “accepting,” arguing that Congress meant to seize actors who truly obtain buyer funds, not those that publish code folks use to maneuver their very own property.
Related Reading Senator Lummis pushes tax break for small Bitcoin payments. Could it unlock everyday adoption?
By easing tax rules, Senator Lummis hopes to shift Bitcoin from an investment tool to a day-to-day currency.
Oct 9, 2025 · Oluwapelumi Adejumo
If you happen to’re on the lookout for the invoice’s sensible promise, it’s this: to make it safer to do the boring, foundational work crypto runs on (sustaining pockets software program, publishing open-source libraries, working infrastructure that relays transactions) with out waking as much as the existential query of whether or not you’ve unintentionally develop into a regulated monetary middleman.
However the line is just not so simple as custody versus no custody.
The toughest circumstances dwell within the center, the place the “management” the invoice refers to is shared, oblique, or exercised via design.
Think about a developer who deploys good contracts that may be upgraded, paused, or parameter-changed with admin keys, or a workforce that controls a front-end interface, units charges, and has discretion over which transactions are routed or prioritized.
The farther you progress from pure publishing and nearer to ongoing operational discretion, the extra a prosecutor, or a state regulator, could argue that you simply’re not simply offering software program, you’re working a service.
That’s why the invoice’s deal with unilateral capability and authorized proper is so essential.
It tries to protect room for enforcement in opposition to actors who truly can transfer or seize person funds whereas giving cowl to those that can’t.
Whether or not it succeeds will rely on how clearly the time period “non-controlling” maps onto real-world programs that usually combine open-source parts with hosted providers, admin dashboards, and managed interfaces.
There’s additionally a legislative subtext.
An analogous concept has circulated within the Home: there’s a Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act invoice launched in 2025 that would offer a secure harbor for non-controlling builders and repair suppliers.
The Senate model arrives at a second when lawmakers are concurrently wrestling with broader market-structure questions, together with who regulates what, how AML ought to apply to DeFi, and whether or not stablecoin regimes ought to look extra like banking guidelines or securities guidelines.
In that context, developer protections can develop into both a principled boundary or a bargaining chip.
Related Reading 
Why developers are calling latest Bitcoin code “malware”
Bitcoin Core’s v30 update widens on-chain data use, splitting the community over innovation vs. bloat.
Oct 13, 2025 · Oluwapelumi Adejumo
What occurs subsequent
The laborious reality about Washington is that launched doesn’t equal handed.
Payments like this typically perform as alerts: they inform companies how lawmakers need an issue framed, they provide lobbyists a textual content to rally round, they usually stake out a negotiating place in a bigger package deal.
The proposal is a standalone push to lock in developer protections because the Senate nears a broader market-structure unveiling, a reminder that the battle over definitions is going on in parallel to the battle over jurisdiction.
Lummis’s personal press launch explicitly frames it as defending builders and infrastructure suppliers who don’t management person funds from being handled as cash transmitters underneath federal legislation.
Essentially the most helpful query here’s what this invoice modifications, even when it doesn’t cross rapidly.
One reply is that it narrows the narrative area prosecutors and regulators can occupy.
When senators put a definition into invoice textual content, like writing “non-controlling” right into a statutory body, they create a reference level that protection attorneys, trade teams, and judges can cite to argue what Congress thinks the legislation ought to imply.
That has been seen in different crypto fights, the place legislative proposals, even failed ones, develop into a part of the broader interpretive ecosystem.
One other reply is that it forces a sharper dialog about compliance design.
If the longer term authorized boundary is management, then system architects have incentives to attenuate management.
That might imply eradicating admin keys, limiting upgradeability, decentralizing interfaces, or making it clear, each technically and contractually, {that a} developer can not unilaterally transfer property.
It additionally creates a brand new type of threat tradeoff: the extra you reduce management for authorized security, the tougher it might be to reply rapidly to hacks, bugs, and governance crises.
For the general public, the invoice is a lens right into a quieter shift.
The early crypto argument was that software program is impartial, and customers are accountable for their actions.
The trendy regulatory pushback is that instruments could be designed to facilitate abuse, and that revenue, governance, and operational involvement can flip that impartial code right into a managed service.
The 2026 invoice is an try to protect an area for open-source infrastructure to exist with out being regulated out of existence, whereas nonetheless leaving room to punish precise intermediaries who deal with different folks’s cash.
The result will doubtless be messy as a result of that’s how the true world is.
Wallets could be self-custodial however default to hosted routing. Decentralized protocols can have small teams with significant levers.
Interfaces could be open-source however managed via domains, app shops, and curated endpoints.
Regulators know this, and so do builders.
The following part of crypto regulation will probably be determined by who controls the levers that transfer worth, and by whether or not Congress can write guidelines that acknowledge the distinction between a software, a service, and the grey territory in between.
If Lummis and Wyden get their approach, not less than one line will probably be clearer than it’s at this time: writing code is just not the identical factor as shifting cash.
The put up Why writing open-source code is instantly an existential threat, and the five-page invoice designed to repair it appeared first on CryptoSlate.