U.S. Senator Ron Wyden urged Senate leaders to preserve legal protections for non-custodial blockchain developers in the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, drawing crypto policy support while leaving his final vote on the bill uncertain.
Key Takeaways
U.S. Senator Ron Wyden urged Senate leaders to preserve protections for non-custodial blockchain developers in the CLARITY Act. Crypto policy advocates praised Wyden’s stance as a defense of software publication and open internet principles.Alex Thorn said backing developer protections does not necessarily indicate Wyden will support the broader CLARITY Act.Wyden wrote:
“I write to urge you to ensure that any version of the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act (Clarity Act) that is brought to the Senate floor preserves Section 604 of the bill as passed out of the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee.”
The lawmaker argued that developers who publish non-custodial software should not automatically fall under money transmitter regulations when they never take control of customer assets. “Developers who make and release software that allows people to manage their own digital assets – and, critically, where the developer does not control user assets – should not be treated as money transmitters solely because they create or publish software,” he explained.
Why Are Crypto Advocates Supporting the Letter? Does Wyden’s Letter Signal Support for the Full CLARITY Act?Wyden’s letter focuses specifically on preserving Section 604 while maintaining anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism safeguards. He argued that developers involved in illicit activity would not be protected and said the provision would help direct enforcement resources toward criminals and unlicensed money transmitting businesses instead of neutral software developers.
The letter concludes with a direct appeal to Senate leadership as consideration of the legislation continues. The senator concluded:
Whether Section 604 remains in the final Senate version of the CLARITY Act has yet to be determined. Wyden’s position on developer protections is explicit, but his vote on the broader legislation remains an open question based on the information currently available.
