The Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act (BRCA) is being highlighted as a necessary component of any market structure legislation for blockchain in the United States. Supporters argue that developers who create or deploy neutral software should not be at risk of prosecution as unlicensed money transmitters solely for their work.
The BRCA aims to clearly define lawful activities such as writing and publishing code, and running neutral software. Advocates compare these activities to those performed by internet service providers, cloud hosting services, router manufacturers, browser developers, and email providers, noting that these groups are not prosecuted when their tools are misused by others. "We do not threaten those actors with prison when a criminal uses the internet, sends an email, routes traffic, or uploads files. The same principle must apply to blockchain developers."
The act seeks to ensure that innovators like Satoshi Nakamoto, Vitalik Buterin, or Hayden Adams can develop blockchain systems without fear of being held liable as money transmitters just for deploying or maintaining software that enables peer-to-peer value exchange. "It clarifies that developers will not face civil or criminal liability as money transmitters solely because they deploy or maintain software that enables peer-to-peer value exchange," the statement reads.
Proponents emphasize that the BRCA does not protect bad actors or create gaps in prosecution. Existing laws still apply if there is evidence of intent to facilitate unlawful conduct. Statutes such as 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h), § 1956(a)(1), § 1957, and 18 U.S.C. § 2 remain available for prosecuting conspiracy or aiding and abetting money laundering based on knowledge and intent rather than mere code publication.
For those operating custodial businesses without proper licensing or anti-money laundering compliance, 18 U.S.C. § 1960 remains enforceable under the BRCA. The act requires prosecutors to demonstrate control over customer funds before pursuing money transmission charges.
Supporters also acknowledge that some projects labeled “decentralized” may actually exercise unilateral control over user funds while trying to avoid regulation through complex structures or marketing language. They state regulators should have resources to investigate and prosecute cases where individuals operate unlicensed money transmitting businesses.
Current Senate Banking Committee proposals include Section 301, which calls for rulemaking to distinguish between genuinely decentralized protocols and non-decentralized ones where control remains with a person or group. Under this framework, only non-decentralized protocols would trigger regulatory obligations under securities laws or the Bank Secrecy Act.
The BRCA has bipartisan support in Congress. Senators Wyden and Lummis introduced a version in the Senate; Representatives Emmer and Torres sponsored it in the House where it passed as part of the Clarity Act with broad support across party lines.
"Statutory ambiguity should not be allowed to convert otherwise constitutionally protected conduct, such as writing and publishing code, into criminal activity," advocates state. They warn that removing or weakening the BRCA would destabilize market structure legislation by exposing developers to open-ended criminal risk unrelated to actual custody of customer funds.
Coin Center is among organizations promoting open standards and individual freedoms in digital identity and cryptocurrency policy areas through research, education and advocacy efforts (http://coincenter.org). The organization works to protect rights related to developing open cryptocurrency networks—including coding and publishing—while influencing consumer protection, privacy, innovation and other policy topics through its independent non-profit structure (http://coincenter.org). Led by executive director Peter Van Valkenburgh (http://coincenter.org), Coin Center provides educational resources on Bitcoin, blockchain technology and regulatory issues (http://coincenter.org).
