2026-01-13 00:19:49

Republican Senator Cynthia Lummis and Democratic Senator Ron Wyden have jointly introduced a new bill that directly clarifies the legal status of developers. The core message is clear: if software developers do not directly control users' funds, they should not be classified as money transmitters.

This proposal, named the "Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act," was officially submitted on Monday, with a clear intention—to delineate clear regulatory boundaries for blockchain developers and various service providers. What are the benefits of this approach? It allows them to reasonably avoid the constraints of existing laws related to money transmission.

Under the current regulatory environment, many blockchain developers are actually operating in a gray area. The introduction of this bill sends a clear signal to the entire ecosystem: as long as you do not directly handle users' money, regulators will have a new boundary. This is undoubtedly an important development for projects and development teams aiming to operate compliantly in the United States.

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

18 Likes

Reward
18
10
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

CountdownToBroke

· 10h ago

Oh finally someone is defending the developers, now there's no need to worry every day --- Wait, does this mean as long as I don't handle the money, I can do whatever I want? Feels a bit too good... --- I didn't expect Lummis and Wyden to team up. These American politicians are surprisingly pragmatic --- Is the developers' spring coming? Or is it just another prelude to a wave of retail investors being harvested? Let's wait and see --- The key is how to define "not directly in charge." These two words can be played with in many ways --- Regulation is easy to talk about, but you'll really know when you try it in the US --- If this bill really passes, the altcoins will be overjoyed --- The regulatory red line is clear now, and the ecosystem can finally breathe a sigh of relief

View OriginalReply0

TrustlessMaximalist

· 14h ago

Finally, someone dares to do this. There are still some rational voices in American politics. If you don't handle money, it's not considered a money transmitter. I love this simple and straightforward logic. Developers can finally breathe a sigh of relief. The fact that Lummis and Wyden are working together already indicates the issue. Both parties have understood that it's time to give the ecosystem some space. Really? So in the future, storing wallet addresses will also need to be defined by this standard? Details are very important. With compliant operations, there's a clear path forward. American project teams can finally stop worrying every day.

View OriginalReply0

OnchainDetective

· 01-15 03:23

Wait, I need to dig into this chain... The combination of Lummis and Wyden is quite interesting. One on the left, one on the right, and suddenly they can reach a consensus? According to on-chain data, such "bipartisan cooperation" often has deeper capital behind it... Not directly managing funds doesn't count as a fund transmitter? That logic has a loophole. By tracking multiple addresses, the true flow of funds is not so simple. Developers just set up an intermediary layer to avoid it, right? An obvious loophole... If this bill really passes, I need to carefully study how the specific clauses are written. Projects with abnormal transaction patterns will definitely find lawyers to exploit loopholes first. I need to add this to my watchlist.

View OriginalReply0

AirdropHunterZhang

· 01-13 05:42

Ha, the combination of Lummis and Wyden is quite something. Bipartisan cooperation to push this... Looks like the big players also don't want to be entangled with developers anymore. Not directly touching money means you're not a transmitter? The boundaries are drawn... Hehe, kind of interesting. Finally, the US has loosened up, and us Schrödinger's compliance folks are saved. Wait, does this mean some projects can openly "not hold money" now? Really getting the policy dividends for free, coming early would have been better. By the way, after this bill passes, the DeFi ecosystem can breathe a sigh of relief. It seems that compliance really depends on the Americans giving the green light. Isn't this like giving developers a "talisman"? The all-in opportunity is here, feels like we can find new opportunities again.

View OriginalReply0

BearMarketBro

· 01-13 00:49

Finally, someone is cleaning up after these developers. Lummis and Wyden's move is quite something. But can this line really be drawn... it still feels like there are loopholes to exploit. Does the US really want to embrace crypto, or is there something else in mind? As long as they don't touch the money? Well, compliance is really interesting. Waiting for the next gray area to appear. Haha

View OriginalReply0

LiquidationOracle

· 01-13 00:49

This is good now, finally someone is giving developers the green light here in the US. If this bill really passes, how many projects will be saved? Not directly touching money means not a money transmitter? That's a bit extreme, feels like someone is trying to exploit loopholes. Lummis and Wyden working together on this is probably the biggest benefit for Web3. Wait, isn't this just a way to make wallets and dApps more comfortable to operate? Now the US ecosystem can catch up with Europe. What was the hold-up all about? By the way, if we define it this way, how should custody services be classified? Finally, some sensible policies are emerging; the previous rules were really absurd. This is the so-called correct way to monetize; finally someone gets the point. It feels like the crypto winter is ending; these policy signals are a sign.

View OriginalReply0

SchroedingerGas

· 01-13 00:47

Damn, bipartisan cooperation? That's a rare event in the US. Looks like everyone has reached a consensus on crypto. Really? As long as you don't touch the money, you're not considered a money transmitter? That line is a bit... blurry, brother. The US has finally figured it out. They should have done this a long time ago. But on the other hand, will this bill really pass? It still depends on the subsequent negotiations. Developers can finally breathe a sigh of relief. That ambiguous zone was indeed uncomfortable. Lummis has always been quite reliable. This cooperation was indeed unexpected. Developers are ecstatic, but I feel like there will be more loopholes for people to exploit. Wait, "not directly in control"... does that mean using contracts as proxies counts as touching the money? Feels like there are still loopholes. Compliance operations... sounds simple, but actually implementing it is another story. Bipartisan consensus itself is a signal. Looks like crypto is really becoming mainstream. But the US legal system always seems to be a step behind.

View OriginalReply0

LiquiditySurfer

· 01-13 00:41

Finally, someone has sorted this out. It really should have come earlier. Not directly managing funds doesn't count as a transmitter? I like this logic. Developers can breathe a sigh of relief. Things are finally moving on the US side, much faster than in Europe. Thumbs up. If this bill really passes, the Web3 ecosystem in the US will be much more comfortable. Wait, as long as you don't touch the money? Then how do exchanges fit into this? Question mark face. It's the Republican and Democratic parties working together again. Looks like crypto has truly transcended party lines. Haha

View OriginalReply0

Liquidated_Larry

· 01-13 00:36

Finally making some progress. Are they starting to figure things out over there in the US? Not directly handling the money doesn't count as a money transmitter—that logic... it's kind of interesting.

View OriginalReply0

BearMarketMonk

· 01-13 00:36

Finally making some progress. These two legislators have actually done some practical work. But to be honest, they're still just looking for loopholes for developers, as long as they don't touch the money. The boundaries are a bit blurry.

View OriginalReply0