Senator Ron Wyden just sent a letter to Senate leaders Thune and Schumer urging them to preserve Section 604 of the Clarity Act, the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act.
This is arguably the most important section in the entire bill. It would codify that non-custodial software developers should not be treated as money transmitters simply for publishing open-source code.
Wyden's argument is straightforward. The Bank Secrecy Act and the criminal code need to be read together. If a developer builds software that lets people manage their own digital assets but never takes custody of those assets, treating that developer as a money transmitter is legally incoherent.
He points out this already aligns with existing FinCEN guidance and emerging case law. He's not asking for something new. He's asking Congress to codify what regulators already acknowledge.
He also pushes back on critics who claim the BRCA weakens anti-money laundering protections. His letter explicitly states the provision would unify FinCEN and DOJ policy, keep law enforcement focused on actual criminals, and includes an exception ensuring that any non-custodial developer found handling illicit funds is not protected.
The political context matters. There's uncertainty over whether certain law enforcement groups will accept the BRCA language and whether changes will be needed to win votes from Democratic senators like Cortez Masto and Warner. Wyden co-sponsored the standalone BRCA alongside Senator Lummis, making this a genuinely bipartisan push.
Worth noting that while Section 604 deserves to be preserved, the Clarity Act as a whole remains a mixed bag. The bill extends the Patriot Act, contains provisions that could be interpreted to impose compliance burdens on open-source wallet developers, and is largely being championed by the broader crypto industry looking to legitimize token issuance.
Section 604 is the part worth fighting for. Whether the rest of the bill deserves the same enthusiasm is another question entirely.
This is arguably the most important section in the entire bill. It would codify that non-custodial software developers should not be treated as money transmitters simply for publishing open-source code.
Wyden's argument is straightforward. The Bank Secrecy Act and the criminal code need to be read together. If a developer builds software that lets people manage their own digital assets but never takes custody of those assets, treating that developer as a money transmitter is legally incoherent.
He points out this already aligns with existing FinCEN guidance and emerging case law. He's not asking for something new. He's asking Congress to codify what regulators already acknowledge.
He also pushes back on critics who claim the BRCA weakens anti-money laundering protections. His letter explicitly states the provision would unify FinCEN and DOJ policy, keep law enforcement focused on actual criminals, and includes an exception ensuring that any non-custodial developer found handling illicit funds is not protected.
The political context matters. There's uncertainty over whether certain law enforcement groups will accept the BRCA language and whether changes will be needed to win votes from Democratic senators like Cortez Masto and Warner. Wyden co-sponsored the standalone BRCA alongside Senator Lummis, making this a genuinely bipartisan push.
Worth noting that while Section 604 deserves to be preserved, the Clarity Act as a whole remains a mixed bag. The bill extends the Patriot Act, contains provisions that could be interpreted to impose compliance burdens on open-source wallet developers, and is largely being championed by the broader crypto industry looking to legitimize token issuance.
Section 604 is the part worth fighting for. Whether the rest of the bill deserves the same enthusiasm is another question entirely.
31❤️1
