Crypto Code Creators Get a Break: New Bill Says They Aren't Money Movers

Two senators have put forward a new bill that could change how crypto software developers are seen by the law. The bill, called the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act of 2026, says that people who write and share blockchain software shouldn't be treated like money transmitters if they don't control other people's funds. This is a big deal because, up until now, there's been a lot of confusion about whether or not developers of non-custodial crypto tools could be held liable for money transmission. The bill aims to clear this up by saying that if you don't have the power to move or seize other people's funds, you shouldn't be treated like a money transmitter. The bill is short but packed with definitions. It defines who counts as a "developer or provider" and what a "distributed ledger service" is. The key idea is that if you don't control the assets, can't move them unilaterally, and don't have the legal right to seize them, you shouldn't be treated as a money transmitter. This is important because, in the past, prosecutors have tried to argue that developers of privacy tools and DeFi platforms are acting like money transmitters. The bill is an attempt to draw a clear line between software publishing and funds custody.The bill is not a done deal, though. It still has to go through the legislative process, and there's no guarantee it will pass. But even if it doesn't, the conversation it starts could be useful. It could help narrow the narrative space that prosecutors and regulators can occupy and force a sharper conversation about compliance design. For the public, the bill is a lens into a quieter shift. The early crypto argument was that software is neutral, and users are responsible for their actions. The modern regulatory pushback is that tools can be designed to facilitate abuse, and that profit, governance, and operational involvement can turn that neutral code into a managed service. The outcome of this bill will likely be messy because that's how the real world is. Wallets can be self-custodial but default to hosted routing. Decentralized protocols can have small groups with meaningful levers. Interfaces can be open-source but controlled through domains, app stores, and curated endpoints. Regulators know this, and so do developers. The next phase of crypto regulation will be decided by who controls the levers that move value, and by whether Congress can write rules that recognize the difference between a tool, a service, and the gray territory in between. If the senators get their way, at least one line will be clearer than it is today: writing code is not the same thing as moving money.