LegisTrack
Back to all bills
HR 3533119th CongressIntroduced

Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act

Introduced: May 21, 2025
Financial ServicesTechnology & Innovation
Standard Summary
Comprehensive overview in 1-2 paragraphs

The Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act would create a safe harbor from licensing and registration requirements for certain non-controlling blockchain developers and providers of blockchain services. Under the bill, these developers and services would not be treated as money transmitters, financial institutions, or subject to general licensing simply for providing a blockchain network or service, unless they have control over digital assets that a user can access through the service. The safe harbor is designed to encourage innovation by reducing regulatory burdens on developers who do not have unilateral control over user assets, while preserving regulation for actors that do exercise such control. The bill also preserves existing intellectual property law and allows states to enforce laws that are consistent with the act, with no liability created under conflicting State or local law. Key definitions underpinning the safe harbor include blockchain developer, blockchain network, blockchain service, control, and digital asset. “Control” is defined as the unilateral legal right to obtain data sufficient to initiate transactions spending digital assets without needing third-party approval. A non-controlling developer or service that lacks this control would thus be protected from licensing and registration requirements under federal and state regimes.

Key Points

  • 1Safe harbor: Non-controlling blockchain developers and providers of blockchain services are not to be treated as money transmitters, financial institutions, or subject to licensing/registration, so long as they do not have control over digital assets users are entitled to under the service or software.
  • 2Trigger for regulation: The safe harbor applies unless the developer or provider has “control” over digital assets in the regular course of business, meaning the ability to unilaterally initiate asset-spending transactions without third-party approval.
  • 3Definitions: The bill defines key terms—blockchain developer, blockchain network, blockchain service, control, and digital asset—to specify who and what falls within the safe harbor.
  • 4Interplay with other laws: Intellectual property law is unaffected; states may enforce laws consistent with the act, and no liability may arise under inconsistent State or local law.
  • 5Scope of networks and services: The definitions explicitly cover blockchain networks (including public networks) and blockchain services that enable access to or use of a blockchain network, including sending, receiving, exchanging, or storing digital assets.

Impact Areas

Primary: Non-controlling blockchain developers and providers of blockchain services (the main beneficiaries), who would gain regulatory clarity and reduced licensing/registration requirements when they do not control user assets.Secondary: Users of blockchain networks and services (whose activity could be less likely to be subject to licensing constraints when engaging with non-controlling developers); state and federal regulators who would need to align enforcement with the safe harbor if the asset-control threshold is not met.Additional impacts: The bill could influence innovation and business models by encouraging development without heavy licensing burdens, while maintaining the ability to regulate actors that do exercise control over digital assets. It may also raise questions about regulatory gaps for actors approaching the control threshold and how “control” interacts with evolving blockchain architectures and asset types. The act references potential interactions with ongoing IP law and state law enforcement, but does not alter those regimes beyond ensuring consistency.
Generated by gpt-5-nano on Oct 3, 2025