The draft would create a safe harbor for developers who do not control user funds, making liability turn on actual custody or control of assets rather than on the act of creating software. That change would mean node operators, protocol maintainers, and many open-source coders could avoid money-transmitter rules so long as they do not hold or direct users’ tokens.
Industry Pressure And A History Of ConcernReports have disclosed months of lobbying from exchanges, developer groups, and advocacy coalitions that urged lawmakers to clarify this point. Those groups warned that without clear language, developers could face licensing and enforcement risks that would chill US-based development. The House version of the measure first appeared in May last year and set out similar safe-harbor text.
Some protocol teams and industry lawyers welcomed the step as a much-needed clarification, saying it would reduce legal uncertainty for projects that do not custody funds.
Others urged care, noting that clear definitions will be crucial to prevent loopholes and to make sure bad actors cannot hide behind the safe harbor. Coverage indicates sponsors emphasized the bill’s goal is narrow: protect those who build and maintain, not those who handle other people’s assets.
There has been a significant increase in lobbying by large crypto-related businesses as legislators review various options for regulating this industry. Several reports have linked the current political environment to the legislative actions taken to regulate crypto in Congress, as well as how interest in legislative action has increased due to Trump’s administration.
Featured image from Unsplash, chart from TradingView
