The Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act (BRCA), currently included in the Senate Banking Committee’s recently released draft of H.R. 3633, the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, is an essential component of digital asset market structure legislation with a long history of bipartisan support in the House and Senate. The crypto industry is united on the BRCA as a must-have to achieve lasting clarity and safeguards for software developers in the United States.

The BRCA makes it clear that non-controlling software developers and infrastructure providers—those without custody or control over user funds or private keys—are not subject to Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) obligations intended for financial intermediaries. The BRCA aligns the law with the 2019 Guidance on Convertible Virtual Currencies from the Department of the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), which makes clear that only those who act as intermediaries and have “total independent control over” user assets are subject to BSA obligations. The BRCA does not alter existing anti‑money laundering laws (e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 1956) or limit prosecutions for fraud, sanctions evasion, trafficking, or terrorism financing. The BRCA is good policy, and its inclusion in market structure is a red line for the industry for good reason. Below, we debunk common misconceptions about the BRCA.

WHY IS THE BRCA NEEDED?

Designed for traditional money services businesses (MSBs) under the BSA, federal registration and state-by-state money transmission licensing have been misapplied to software developers who build noncustodial, peer-to-peer blockchain technology or software tools, despite the fact that neither the developers nor the software itself transmit, custody, or control other people’s funds. This “regulation-by-prosecution” chills open‑source innovation and pushes U.S. developers offshore. The impact is evident: the U.S. share of open‑source developers fell from 25% in 2021 to 18% in 2025, driven by a lack of clear, durable rules for software development. Financial infrastructure is moving to 24/7/365, globally accessible decentralized blockchain rails. Pushing developers offshore who create that infrastructure cedes U.S. influence over design and standards, weakens oversight, and hampers illicit‑finance detection. If innovation migrates overseas, adversaries gain leverage in shaping core protocols. The BRCA will help reshore jobs in American technological innovation, retain top talent, and keep critical infrastructure aligned with rule‑of‑law in the U.S.

BRCA MYTHS vs. FACTS

Myth: The BRCA undermines the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) or Anti-Money Laundering (AML) efforts. 

Fact: The BRCA aligns with existing law, including the BSA, by 1) clarifying what the BSA means where it says that money transmitting businesses “accept and transmit” other people’s funds and 2) codifying FinCEN’s 2019 Guidance in statute. The BSA defines the obligations of “financial institutions” who are trusted with control of other people’s funds and requires the collection of customer information, and the BRCA does not change these obligations. Software developers who do not control or custody other people’s funds are not similar to financial institutions and do not have a similar customer relationship with end users. 

Rather than changing existing law, the BRCA manifests Congress’s intent for how the term “money transmitting” should be interpreted, aligning it with existing FinCEN guidance and with the recently-articulated DOJ position that “where the evidence shows that software is truly decentralized and solely automates peer-to-peer transactions, and where a third party does not have custody and control over user assets,” software developers are not operating an MSB. See August 2025 speech by Acting AAG Matthew Galeotti discussing Section 1960 prosecutions.  

The BRCA does not alter existing anti‑money laundering laws (e.g., 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956, 1957) or limit prosecutions for fraud, sanctions evasion, trafficking, terrorism financing, or even operating an unlicensed money transmission business as interpreted by FinCEN.  

Myth: The BRCA makes it easier for criminals to get away with laundering money or engaging in illicit activity.

Fact: The BRCA does not touch the criminal code provisions related to money laundering and does not limit prosecutors’ ability to bring charges against illicit actors. Federal criminal law includes robust money laundering statutes, such as 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956 and 1957, which are specifically tailored to punish knowing involvement in illicit financial activity and require proof of intent and nexus to unlawful proceeds. Where actors are facilitating crime, these statutes remain fully available and are more appropriately calibrated to distinguish culpable conduct from the development or publication of neutral technologies, such as noncustodial blockchain technology or DeFi protocols.  

Myth: The inclusion of the BRCA in the Clarity Act undermines the illicit finance and AML rules elsewhere in the bill. 

Fact: The BRCA does not weaken illicit finance provisions or AML requirements. Instead, it reinforces their application by clearly defining regulatory definitions. All entities that have control over user funds have the same obligations that existed before the BRCA. The market structure bill requires digital securities intermediaries to register with the SEC and digital commodity intermediaries to register with the CFTC, and includes definitions for the latter category. All SEC and CFTC registrants have obligations under the Bank Secrecy Act, including the requirement to develop and maintain an effective AML program and supervision, regulatory requirements, reporting, and enforcement, which will apply to these newly-defined entities. The Clarity Act brings more unregulated digital commodity intermediaries into the regulatory perimeter, meaningfully addressing concerns related to money laundering and illicit finance. 

Myth: The BRCA “weakens” the ability to prosecute crimes under 18 U.S.C. § 1960. 

Fact: Clarifying the scope of Section 1960 does not deprive prosecutors of meaningful enforcement tools. Federal law already provides robust mechanisms to address genuine criminal conduct through the money laundering statutes, including 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956 and 1957.  Prosecutors successfully utilize these statutes broadly and extensively to combat a myriad of illicit activity.  Alternatively, when charged, Section 1960 is frequently used to secure venue rather than to address substantive activities. Nor does the BRCA weaken Section 1960 itself; instead, it aligns the criminal code with the BSA’s definition of “money transmitting” and with guidance by the primary regulator of MSBs – FinCEN. Section 1960 was meant to be the enforcement provision for the BSA MSB licensing requirements, and ensuring that the law is read consistently is important for defendants’ rights to Due Process and fair notice. 

Myth: The BRCA creates a “sweeping exemption” for all software developers. 

Fact: The BRCA’s statutory language is narrowly tailored to only those actors who do not control user assets – defined as a “non-controlling developer or provider.” The BRCA is narrowly tailored to only apply to non-controlling developers or providers, who would not be classified as a money transmitter under the BSA. This aligns with the BSA statute itself, which states that money transmitting businesses “accept and transmit” other people’s funds. 

Myth: The BRCA is not within the Senate Banking Committee’s Jurisdiction. 

Fact: The Banking Committee exercises exclusive jurisdiction over the Bank Secrecy Act and Title 31, which includes the federal definition of “money transmitting” and “money transmitting business.” In fact, the Senate Parliamentarian recently referred a standalone version of the BRCA to the Banking Committee only. 

Myth: The BRCA only has partisan support. 
Fact: The BRCA has enjoyed strong bipartisan support since it was introduced in the House, sponsored by Representatives Tom Emmer (R-MN), Ritchie Torres (D-NY), Bill Huizenga (R-MI), Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ), and Warren Davidson (R-OH). In July 2025, the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act was passed by a bipartisan supermajority in the House and included the BRCA, underscoring the bill’s broad bipartisan support. Earlier this year, U.S. Senator Cynthia Lummis (R-WY), the Senate Banking Digital Assets Subcommittee Chair, and Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR)introduced the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act (BRCA) of 2026. These legislative efforts underscore the nonpartisan nature of the legislation and emphasize the broad support for its inclusion in digital asset market structure legislation.