In a formal communication addressed to the members of the Senate Banking Committee on February 17, 2026, Coin Center, a leading non-profit research and advocacy group focused on public policy issues facing cryptocurrency, emphasized the critical necessity of integrating the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act (BRCA) into the nation’s emerging digital asset market structure. Authored by Jason Somensatto, the letter argues that the long-term viability of the United States’ blockchain ecosystem hinges on providing clear legal protections for developers who write, publish, and deploy neutral software. Without such protections, the organization warns, the domestic industry faces an existential threat from aggressive regulatory interpretations that could classify the mere act of writing code as unlicensed money transmission.
The correspondence serves as a strategic intervention as the Senate Banking Committee deliberates on a comprehensive market structure bill. Coin Center’s primary contention is that the BRCA is not merely a supplementary piece of legislation but a foundational pillar required to ensure that technological innovation is not criminalized. By narrowing the definition of money transmitters to exclude those who do not have control over user funds, the BRCA aims to codify a distinction between custodial financial services and the neutral infrastructure that enables decentralized networks to function.
The Legal and Philosophical Foundation of the BRCA
At the heart of the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act is the principle that software developers should not be held liable for the actions of third parties who use their tools. The legislation seeks to clarify that individuals or entities engaged in the creation and maintenance of blockchain software—ranging from protocol developers to node operators—should not be required to register as money transmitters if they do not exercise custody over customer assets.
Coin Center draws a direct parallel between blockchain developers and the architects of the modern internet. In the current legal landscape, internet service providers (ISPs), cloud hosting companies, router manufacturers, and email providers are not prosecuted for the illicit activities of their users. If a criminal uses an encrypted email service to coordinate a crime, the developer of that email software is not typically charged with money laundering or unlicensed transmission. Coin Center argues that this same standard of neutrality must be extended to the digital asset space.
The letter highlights that the BRCA is designed to protect the "next generation" of innovators—citing figures like Satoshi Nakamoto, Vitalik Buterin, and Hayden Adams—who built the very systems that current market structure bills seek to regulate. By ensuring that these developers do not face civil or criminal liability solely for deploying peer-to-peer software, the act preserves the core ethos of cryptocurrency: the ability for individuals to transact without relying on centralized, trusted intermediaries.
Preserving the Integrity of Criminal Law
One of the most significant points raised in the letter is the refutation of the idea that the BRCA creates a "prosecution gap." Critics of the bill have often suggested that providing safe harbors for developers would allow bad actors to evade justice. However, Somensatto clarifies that the BRCA does not shield those who engage in genuine criminal conduct.
The letter outlines several existing statutes that remain fully operative regardless of the BRCA’s passage:
- 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h): Prosecutors can still bring conspiracy charges against developers who knowingly agree to facilitate money laundering.
- 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1): This applies to individuals conducting financial transactions with the intent to conceal the nature or source of criminal proceeds.
- 18 U.S.C. § 1957: This statute targets those who knowingly engage in monetary transactions exceeding $10,000 involving criminally derived property.
- 18 U.S.C. § 2: This allows for the prosecution of anyone who aids and abets a federal crime.
The distinction, according to Coin Center, is that these laws focus on "conduct, agreement, and intent" rather than the "mere publication of code." Furthermore, 18 U.S.C. § 1960, which governs unlicensed money transmitting businesses, would remain a potent tool against custodial entities that fail to comply with Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) requirements. The BRCA simply ensures that the government must prove the element of "control" over funds, aligning the law with decades of guidance from the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN).
Chronology of the BRCA and Legislative Milestones
The path of the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act has been marked by persistent bipartisan efforts across several sessions of Congress. Understanding the current 2026 push requires a look back at the legislative timeline:
- Early Introductions (2021-2022): The BRCA was first introduced as a standalone effort to address the growing trend of "regulation by enforcement" where developers of decentralized protocols found themselves in the crosshairs of the SEC and the DOJ.
- Bipartisan Coalition Building (2023-2024): In the Senate, Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) emerged as key champions. In the House, Tom Emmer (R-MN) and Darren Soto (D-FL) pushed the bill through various committees, emphasizing that digital privacy and developer freedom are non-partisan issues.
- The Clarity Act and FIT21 (2024-2025): The House version of the BRCA gained significant momentum when it was included in the Clarity for Payment Stablecoins Act and later influenced the Financial Innovation and Technology for the 21st Century Act (FIT21). It passed the House with an overwhelming bipartisan majority, signaling a clear mandate for developer protections.
- Senate Banking Committee Deliberations (Early 2026): As of February 2026, the focus has shifted to the Senate Banking Committee, led by Chairman Sherrod Brown and Ranking Member Tim Scott. The current draft of the market structure bill represents a high-stakes negotiation to settle the regulatory boundaries between the SEC and CFTC while addressing the status of decentralized finance (DeFi).
Technical Synergy: Section 301 and Decentralization
A key technical component of the ongoing debate is Section 301 of the Senate Banking draft. This section requires the establishment of a formal rulemaking process to distinguish between "genuinely decentralized" protocols and those that are "non-decentralized."
According to the draft, a protocol is considered non-decentralized if a person or a group under common control retains the authority to materially alter its functionality or restrict its use. Only these centralized entities would be subject to the full weight of securities laws and the Bank Secrecy Act. Coin Center argues that the BRCA works in concert with Section 301. While Section 301 defines the boundary of "decentralization" for regulatory purposes, the BRCA ensures that the people who write the code for those protocols—whether decentralized or not—are not treated as money transmitters simply for the act of publishing software.
This distinction is crucial for the "DeFi" sector. Many projects start as centralized endeavors before transitioning to community governance. Without the BRCA, the developers of these nascent projects could be prosecuted during the transition phase, even if they never held user funds.
Supporting Data and the "Brain Drain" Concern
The push for the BRCA is supported by industry data suggesting that regulatory ambiguity is driving innovation away from the United States. According to various developer reports from 2024 and 2025, the U.S. share of the global blockchain developer workforce has seen a steady decline, dropping from roughly 40% in 2017 to under 25% by the end of 2025.
Industry analysts point to high-profile cases—such as the prosecution of developers associated with privacy-mixing protocols—as a primary deterrent for new talent. Coin Center’s letter emphasizes that if the BRCA is weakened or removed from the final market structure bill, it will create "open-ended criminal exposure untethered from core elements of money transmission." The result would be a chilling effect on responsible builders, who may choose to move their operations to jurisdictions with clearer legal frameworks, such as the European Union under MiCA (Markets in Crypto-Assets) or the United Kingdom.
Analysis of Broader Implications and Future Outlook
The outcome of the Senate Banking Committee’s decision on the BRCA will likely define the trajectory of the U.S. crypto industry for the next decade. If the act is included, it establishes a "code as speech" precedent that protects the First Amendment rights of software engineers while maintaining the government’s ability to prosecute actual financial crimes. It would solidify the U.S. as a hub for decentralized technology, providing a clear "rules of the road" that distinguish between toolmakers and financial intermediaries.
Conversely, the removal of the BRCA could lead to a fragmented regulatory landscape where developers are forced to implement "permissioned" layers into their software to avoid being labeled as money transmitters. This would effectively undermine the permissionless nature of public blockchains, potentially rendering them indistinguishable from traditional banking databases.
Coin Center concludes that the BRCA is not a "partisan add-on" but a structural necessity. The organization’s letter serves as a reminder to lawmakers that the stability of the digital asset market depends not just on how assets are traded, but on the freedom of the people who build the underlying infrastructure. As the Senate moves toward a vote, the inclusion of the BRCA remains the most significant litmus test for whether the U.S. intends to foster or stifle the next era of internet-native value exchange.
