A significant development in blockchain legislation: Senator Cynthia Lummis has introduced H.R.3533, the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act, which addresses a critical distinction for the DeFi ecosystem.
The key takeaway is straightforward—if your smart contract or protocol doesn't actually hold custody of digital assets, it shouldn't be classified as transmitting money. This interpretation could reshape how regulators approach DeFi code and non-custodial protocols.
This clarification matters because it acknowledges the fundamental difference between code that facilitates transactions and services that control funds. It's a recognition that many DeFi protocols operate without ever taking possession of user assets, making them fundamentally different from traditional financial intermediaries.
For developers and protocols prioritizing transparency and code-based interactions, this legislative framework suggests a path toward clearer compliance expectations. The distinction could provide much-needed regulatory certainty for the growing DeFi sector.
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
15 Likes
Reward
15
6
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
ShibaMillionairen't
· 1h ago
Someone finally figured it out: non-custodial protocols should not be considered financial intermediaries... If this bill actually passes, it could change the game.
View OriginalReply0
VitalikFanAccount
· 3h ago
Finally, someone understands what non-custodial means, otherwise a bunch of projects would get caught in the crossfire.
View OriginalReply0
StablecoinGuardian
· 01-13 19:59
Finally, someone gets the point. Non-custodial should not be considered a financial intermediary. This logic should have been established long ago.
View OriginalReply0
CryptoCross-TalkClub
· 01-13 19:55
Laughing out loud, the regulators finally understand the difference between non-custodial and custodial. It took until 2024 to figure it out, truly impressive efficiency.
View OriginalReply0
TokenTherapist
· 01-13 19:46
Huh, now it's finally clear—someone has finally understood the difference between non-custodial and custodial... Is that true?
View OriginalReply0
AirdropHarvester
· 01-13 19:33
Wow, finally someone clarified this. Don't talk to me about money transmission if it's not a custody agreement...
DeFi Regulatory Clarity on the Horizon
A significant development in blockchain legislation: Senator Cynthia Lummis has introduced H.R.3533, the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act, which addresses a critical distinction for the DeFi ecosystem.
The key takeaway is straightforward—if your smart contract or protocol doesn't actually hold custody of digital assets, it shouldn't be classified as transmitting money. This interpretation could reshape how regulators approach DeFi code and non-custodial protocols.
This clarification matters because it acknowledges the fundamental difference between code that facilitates transactions and services that control funds. It's a recognition that many DeFi protocols operate without ever taking possession of user assets, making them fundamentally different from traditional financial intermediaries.
For developers and protocols prioritizing transparency and code-based interactions, this legislative framework suggests a path toward clearer compliance expectations. The distinction could provide much-needed regulatory certainty for the growing DeFi sector.