Connect with us

Crypto World

Coin Center Warns: Weakening BRCA Threatens Blockchain Innovation

Published

on

Nexo Partners with Bakkt for US Crypto Exchange and Yield Programs

TLDR:

  • BRCA ensures crypto developers cannot face prosecution solely for publishing neutral blockchain software.
  • Criminal statutes still apply to custodial operators or those with intent to launder funds.
  • Section 301 distinguishes decentralized protocols from centralized platforms to clarify obligations.
  • Bipartisan support highlights consistent recognition of lawful developer activity in U.S. law.

 

Crypto developers in the United States may face heightened legal risks if key protections in the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act are weakened. Coin Center, a leading blockchain advocacy group, urged Senate Banking Committee members to preserve safeguards for neutral software developers. 

The organization emphasized that the BRCA ensures coders cannot be prosecuted as money transmitters simply for creating or maintaining blockchain software. Without these protections, innovation in decentralized systems could slow as legal ambiguity increases.

BRCA Aims to Shield Neutral Blockchain Software

The BRCA narrowly defines lawful activity, covering code writing, software publishing, and running neutral systems. 

Coin Center compared these roles to internet service providers and cloud operators, noting they face no prosecution for criminal misuse by third parties. The legislation clarifies that developers enabling peer-to-peer value exchange do not automatically assume liability for user actions.

Advertisement

The bill also distinguishes between custodial intermediaries and neutral infrastructure. Developers who control customer funds remain subject to existing money transmission statutes. 

Coin Center stressed that the BRCA does not create gaps in enforcement or shield illicit activity. Criminal statutes, including 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956 and 1957, still apply when intent to launder or mismanage funds is proven.

Section 301 of the Senate Banking draft already attempts to separate genuinely decentralized protocols from centralized platforms

Only non-decentralized protocols, where authority can alter functionality or restrict use, may trigger regulatory obligations. Coin Center emphasized that the BRCA complements this distinction, protecting developers who do not exercise control over user funds.

Advertisement

The legislation ensures innovators like Vitalik Buterin or Hayden Adams can operate without fear of arbitrary prosecution. The act aims to maintain the neutrality and public availability of blockchain tools. 

Removing these protections could deter responsible development while leaving criminal actors unaffected.

Bipartisan Support Reinforces Developer Safeguards

The BRCA has consistently drawn bipartisan support in both the Senate and House. 

Senators Ron Wyden and Cynthia Lummis introduced the Senate version, while Representatives Tom Emmer and Juan Vargas have championed the House counterpart. Versions of the act have passed Congress multiple times, most recently through the Clarity Act.

Advertisement

Coin Center highlighted that statutory ambiguity should not criminalize constitutionally protected conduct. Writing, publishing, and maintaining software without custody over funds remains a lawful activity. 

The organization argued that weakening the BRCA would inject instability into U.S. blockchain regulation. Developers would face unclear liability, risking their willingness to build within the country.

The act does not exempt bad actors. It preserves all prosecutorial tools to target unlicensed custodial services or those knowingly facilitating criminal transactions

Neutral software development remains protected while law enforcement retains authority over illicit operations. This distinction draws a clear line between innovation and criminal exposure.

Advertisement

By codifying these rules, the BRCA seeks to maintain a stable environment for blockchain innovation. Coin Center’s advocacy reinforces the importance of preserving protections amid ongoing market structure legislation.

Without it, developers risk legal uncertainty while centralized intermediaries remain fully accountable.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Crypto World

Bitcoin ETFs Post $105M Outflows As Hong Kong Buyer Emerges

Published

on

Bitcoin ETFs Post $105M Outflows As Hong Kong Buyer Emerges

US spot Bitcoin exchange-traded funds (ETFs) posted $104.9 million in net outflows on Tuesday in the first trading session this week.

Total trading volume in spot Bitcoin (BTC) ETFs fell to just over $3 billion, down nearly 80% from a record $14.7 billion on Feb. 5, reflecting a continued slowdown in trading activity, according to SoSoValue data.

Daily flows in US spot Bitcoin ETFs since Feb. 9, 2026. Source: SoSoValue

The outflows came as another round of institutions reported their Bitcoin ETF holdings for the fourth quarter of 2025, with Jane Street ranking as the second-largest buyer of BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin ETF (IBIT) in Q4, buying $276 million.

Q4 also saw a new IBIT entrant, an obscure Hong Kong-based company called Laurore, which acquired $436.2 million of the ETF in a single purchase reported to the US Securities and Exchange Commission.

A potential sign of Chinese institutions moving into Bitcoin?

According to Bitwise Investments adviser Jeff Park, Laurore’s newly disclosed position in IBIT could be an early indication of institutional Chinese capital entering Bitcoin.

Advertisement

Park said Laurore has no public footprint — no website or press — and the only available information is that the filer’s name is Zhang Hui, the Chinese equivalent of “John Smith.”

Source: Jeff Park

While Park speculated that the investment may be linked to capital flight, some commentators questioned why the company would choose to buy Bitcoin through an ETF rather than directly.

Brevan Howard slashes IBIT holdings by 85%

Beyond Laurore and Jane Street, several institutions made significant moves with IBIT in Q4 2025. Weiss Asset Management reportedly added about 2.8 million shares ($107.5 million), while 59 North Capital increased its position by 2.6 million shares ($99.8 million).

Abu Dhabi’s state-owned investment firm Mubadala Investment also boosted its IBIT holdings by 45%, rising from 8.7 million shares in Q3 to 12.7 million in Q4, valued at $630.7 million.

Source: Zerohedge

In contrast, some companies cut their Bitcoin ETF exposure in Q4 2025. Brevan Howard reduced its IBIT holdings, dropping about 85% from 37 million shares ($2.4 billion) in Q3 2025 to about 5.5 million shares ($273.5 million) in Q4.

Goldman Sachs also trimmed its IBIT holdings by about 40%, leaving around $1 billion in assets.

Advertisement

Magazine: Is China hoarding gold so yuan becomes global reserve instead of USD?