Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act
Summary
What This Bill Does
The Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act protects non-controlling blockchain developers and blockchain service providers. A developer or provider may not be treated as a money transmitter, as engaging in money transmitting under state or federal law, as a Bank Secrecy Act financial institution, or as another legal designation requiring licensing or registration or triggering unlicensed-conduct liability unless, in the regular course of business, the developer or provider controls digital assets to which a user is entitled under the blockchain service or software. The bill defines blockchain developer as a person or business creating, maintaining, or disseminating software facilitating a blockchain network or service. It defines blockchain service as an information, transaction, computing, access, sending, receiving, exchange, or storage service for digital assets described by blockchain networks. Control turns on possession or ability to control digital assets. The bill does not limit or expand intellectual property law, allows states to enforce laws consistent with the safe harbor, and bars state or local causes of action or liability inconsistent with the safe harbor.
Who Benefits and How
Non-custodial blockchain developers benefit from protection against money-transmitter and financial-institution licensing treatment. Blockchain infrastructure providers benefit if they provide access or software without controlling user digital assets. Open-source software developers benefit from reduced unlicensed-money-transmission risk. Blockchain users benefit if noncustodial tools remain available without custodial compliance structures.
Who Bears the Burden and How
State money-transmitter regulators lose authority to impose inconsistent licensing liability on non-controlling developers and providers. Federal financial regulators must distinguish custodial control from noncustodial software or network services. Consumer protection advocates may face fewer licensing hooks for noncustodial blockchain services. Custodial digital asset services remain exposed if they control user assets in the regular course of business.
Key Provisions
- Protects blockchain developers and service providers from money-transmitter treatment unless they control user digital assets.
- Extends the safe harbor to financial-institution and licensing-triggering legal designations.
- Defines blockchain developer, blockchain network, blockchain service, and control.
- Preserves intellectual property law and state laws consistent with the safe harbor.
- Preempts inconsistent state or local causes of action and liability.
Evidence Chain:
This summary is generated from the full bill text using AI analysis. Expand "Detailed Analysis" below for identified beneficiaries/burden bearers with clause-level evidence links.
At a Glance
What This Bill Does
Creates a federal safe harbor so non-custodial blockchain developers and blockchain service providers are not treated as money transmitters, financial institutions, or licensing-triggering entities unless they regularly control user digital assets, while preserving intellectual property law and consistent state enforcement and preempting inconsistent state or local liability.
Key Policy Areas
Digital Assets, Financial Regulation, Technology
Primary Purpose
Creates a federal safe harbor so non-custodial blockchain developers and blockchain service providers are not treated as money transmitters, financial institutions, or licensing-triggering entities unless they regularly control user digital assets, while preserving intellectual property law and consistent state enforcement and preempting inconsistent state or local liability.
Policy Domains
Resolution provisions
Identified Gains
- Non-custodial blockchain developers
- Blockchain infrastructure providers
- Open-source software developers
- Blockchain users
Identified Costs
- State money-transmitter regulators
- Federal financial regulators
- Consumer protection advocates
- Custodial digital asset services
Sponsors
Legislative Progress
In CommitteeMr. Emmer (for himself and Mr. Torres of New York) …
Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
Introduced in House
Stakeholder Effects
cui bono?How this legislation distributes effects. Mention counts reflect frequency, not effect magnitude.
Blockchain infrastructure providers, Blockchain users, Non-custodial blockchain developers
Federal financial regulators, State money-transmitter regulators
Bill Structure & Actor Mappings
Who is "The Secretary" in each section?
We use a combination of our own taxonomy and classification in addition to large language models to assess meaning and potential beneficiaries. High confidence means strong textual evidence. Always verify with the original bill text.
Learn more about our methodology