US Crypto Policy Innovation: Advocates Push for Clear Regulations and Developer Protections
The Solana Policy Institute has urged the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to differentiate between centralized crypto exchanges and non-custodial decentralized finance (DeFi) software. The nonprofit emphasizes that developers creating and publishing non-custodial code should not be classified as intermediaries, advocating for balanced regulation that fosters innovation without compromising security or legality.
Key Takeaways
- Advocates call for regulatory clarity distinguishing between non-custodial DeFi protocols and centralized exchanges.
- The Institute argues that applying traditional securities laws to DeFi code risks stifling innovation and pushing activity offshore.
- Authorities are encouraged to adopt a custody-and-control-based framework to clarify legal liabilities.
- Legislation proposals aim to shield developers from legal liabilities associated with blockchain code and activity.
Tickers mentioned: None
Sentiment: Supportive of clear, innovation-friendly regulation
Price impact: Neutral, as policy shifts aim to shape legal frameworks and clarify developer liabilities
Trading idea (Not Financial Advice): Hold — regulatory clarity could stabilize the sector in the long term.
Market context: The ongoing regulatory discussions reflect broader efforts to refine crypto governance amidst increasing adoption and innovation.
Detailed Overview
The Solana Policy Institute’s recent letter to the SEC underscores the importance of nuanced regulation within the rapidly evolving blockchain space. It advocates for the agency to distinguish between centralized exchanges, which custody assets and facilitate transactions, and non-custodial DeFi operations that execute code without controlling user funds. According to the institute, treating developers of non-custodial protocols as intermediaries under existing securities laws, such as the Exchange Act 3b-16, would be inappropriate and potentially restrictive.
“Transactions that take place via a smart contract protocol are not the regulatory equivalent of trading on an exchange or ATS and should not be treated as such.”
The proposal calls for issuing guidance that clearly delineates software tools from entities with custody or control, encouraging a framework that considers custody and control as primary regulatory factors. This shift aims to prevent overreach, support innovation, and prevent the mass migration of blockchain activity offshore to unregulated environments. The concern is that improper laws could undermine the US’s competitiveness in blockchain development.
The letter also highlights recent legal cases, such as the prosecution of Tornado Cash co-founders, Roman Storm and Alexey Pertsev, who operated a non-custodial privacy protocol but faced charges for alleged money laundering. These cases illustrate the complex legal landscape that developers navigate and reinforce the need for clear, supportive policy frameworks that encourage responsible innovation while clarifying liabilities.
Legislative Efforts for Developer Protections
In parallel, U.S. Senators Cynthia Lummis and Ron Wyden introduced the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act, aiming to shield blockchain developers who do not hold or control user funds from federal and state money transfer regulations. Senator Lummis emphasized that developers maintaining open-source networks should not be automatically classified as money transmitters, highlighting the importance of legal clarity for fostering sustainable development in the blockchain space.
The legislation is part of broader efforts, including the forthcoming crypto market structure bill known as the CLARITY Act. Although the Senate Agriculture Committee delayed its markup until late January to gather wider bipartisan support, the reforms signal a clear move toward creating a balanced, innovation-friendly regulatory environment for the burgeoning crypto ecosystem.
