Coin Center urged the Senate Banking Committee in mid-February 2026 to keep developer protections in the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act (BRCA), warning that removing them would expand money-transmitter risk to people who build non-custodial software. Coin Center’s core message is that policy should distinguish between writing code and moving customer funds.
In its letter, Coin Center asked senators to retain language that shields developers and infrastructure providers who merely publish, maintain, or support code without taking custody of user assets, and it highlighted that the latest bipartisan draft was refined in January 2026 by Senators Cynthia Lummis and Ron Wyden after earlier House sponsorship by Representative Tom Emmer. The group argues that stripping the carve-out would prolong uncertainty at the exact moment the committee is evaluating a market-structure package.
— Coin Center (@coincenter) February 17, 2026
What the BRCA Safe Harbor Actually Does
The practical intent of the BRCA safe harbor is to prevent non-controlling developers and non-custodial infrastructure providers from being treated like money transmitters simply because their code can be used in value transfer. Coin Center frames the safe harbor as an “internet-norms” alignment that treats protocol builders more like neutral infrastructure than financial intermediaries.
From a product and compliance standpoint, Coin Center’s position is that statutory clarity would tighten the compliance perimeter around actual custody and control, rather than around software publication and maintenance. In operational terms, clearer boundaries would lower compliance drag for non-custodial designs while making risk ownership more explicit for actors who truly control funds.
Why the Enforcement Backdrop Raises the Stakes
Coin Center anchored its argument in recent enforcement outcomes it says demonstrate prosecutorial spillover risk for developers, pointing to the Tornado Cash case involving developer Roman Storm and to the Samourai Wallet founders’ sentencing. By tying the policy debate to real criminal exposure, Coin Center is effectively positioning developer clarity as a prerequisite for sustainable onshore building.
The trade-off is straightforward: supporters argue the exemption enables innovation without forcing non-custodial builders into bank-style compliance obligations, while critics worry broad carve-outs could weaken consumer safeguards or create enforcement gaps. That tension puts Senate Banking in a governance bind: calibrate developer protection without inadvertently creating a perceived compliance loophole.
The legislative outcome will shape whether teams keep engineering, hiring, and product roadmaps anchored in the U.S. or pivot to jurisdictions with clearer statutory lines. For market participants, the immediate watch item is whether the committee advances the BRCA language intact, because that choice will directly affect compliance cost, institutional comfort, and where infrastructure talent concentrates.