A revised version of the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act is resurfacing in Washington, and it could redraw how U.S. law treats software creators and infrastructure operators in crypto. According to Coin Center, the updated bill — now carrying language put forward by Senators Cynthia Lummis and Ron Wyden — seeks to make a simple but consequential point: people who write code or run infrastructure but do not control other people’s crypto funds should not be classified as money transmitters. The change builds on an earlier House measure authored by Representative Tom Emmer and is intended to draw a clearer legal line between building tools and moving money. Supporters say that clarity is urgently needed. Without it, routine acts of coding or maintaining services could be construed as operating a bank, chilling innovation and pushing developers offshore. Coin Center and other advocates frame the issue as one of regulatory certainty: clear rules would let teams decide whether to stay and invest in the U.S., rather than relocate to friendlier jurisdictions. The push for reform has been amplified by several high-profile prosecutions. The developer linked to Tornado Cash faces money-transmission charges and is awaiting sentencing, while two men tied to Samourai Wallet — Keonne Rodriguez and Will Lonergan Hill — have already been convicted and given multi-year terms. Those cases have put tools and their creators squarely in the crosshairs of criminal enforcement, and they’re cited frequently in the debate over how broadly to define liability. Not everyone is comfortable with the proposed protections. Opponents warn that broad safe harbors could create loopholes that let bad actors escape accountability. That tension has split lawmakers, policy groups, and tech teams in Washington, and legal experts are similarly divided: some favor narrow, tightly scoped safe harbors; others want stronger guardrails that still allow prosecutors to pursue criminal misuse. Jason Somensatto, policy chief at Coin Center, has urged lawmakers not to dilute the bill. In a letter to the Senate Banking Committee he argued that software authors deserve the same basic protections as other internet builders — hosting firms, browser teams, and email providers — who aren’t jailed when their products are misused by third parties. As of now, the Senate Banking Committee has not marked up the bill. Lawmakers will have to balance competing priorities: protecting public safety and preventing crime, while avoiding regulatory uncertainty that could stifle the next wave of crypto infrastructure. The committee’s choice matters beyond policy papers — it will shape where developers choose to work and how future crypto tools are built. For an industry still grappling with regulatory risk, this bill may be an early test of whether the U.S. will remain a competitive home for foundational crypto development. (Reporting based on Coin Center’s Feb. 17, 2026 update. Featured image from Unsplash; chart from TradingView.) Read more AI-generated news on: undefined/news