Senator Lummis, Senate Banking Digital Assets Subcommittee chair, stated:
She added that treating developers like financial institutions despite lacking access to customer funds “unnecessarily limits innovation” and creates legal exposure for activities that do not involve money laundering risk.
Senator Wyden, chair of the Senate Finance Committee, explained:
“Forcing developers who write code to follow the same rules as exchanges or brokers is technologically illiterate and a recipe for violating Americans’ privacy and free speech rights.”
He emphasized that the federal government can oversee digital asset markets without dictating what software creators are permitted to build.
Lawmakers backing the bill contend that regulatory ambiguity has pushed development offshore while exposing U.S.-based teams to inconsistent state-level requirements. The legislation preserves state enforcement authority when aligned with federal standards but prevents states from imposing money transmitter obligations on developers engaged solely in the outlined activities. Supporters also point to a 2024 letter from Lummis and Wyden to Attorney General Merrick Garland, which questioned the Justice Department’s interpretation of money transmission and highlighted inconsistencies with Treasury Department guidance from the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network.
FAQ ⏰ What does the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act aim to change? It defines when blockchain developers and infrastructure providers are not considered money transmitters under federal law. Who qualifies as a non-controlling blockchain developer? Developers who write or maintain blockchain software without authority over user funds or transactions. Why do lawmakers say current rules hurt blockchain innovation? They argue regulatory ambiguity forces developers offshore and exposes U.S. teams to conflicting state requirements. Does the bill eliminate state oversight of digital assets? No, it preserves state enforcement authority when aligned with federal standards.
