So not only do these op ed authors not know how decentralized networks work (not at all like publicly traded centralized company eBay), they also didn’t read the Clarity Act / are just misrepresenting its provisions.

TY @SecScottBessent: some may discount this statement as "partisan," but those of us engaging w the *law* for years - incl w the dedicated staff @FinCENnews & @USTreasury - understand that the BRCA codifies existing law & policy. anyone "editing" it wants to *change* the law.

From the Treasury Secretary himself: "The Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act — which Washington lobbyists have spun up as a boogeyman for certain groups of prosecutors and law enforcement — does nothing other than codify longstanding Treasury Department policy that’s remained consistent across Administrations: non-custodial builders and developers are not, and have never been, subject to registration obligations under the Bank Secrecy Act."

the proposal is unserious and insulting unserious because it completely twists the protective nature of the BRCA into a weapon against devs insulting because, as @patrickjwitt noted, it is not representative of the negotiations the WH and Treasury have engaged in with LEOs these groups and CCM instead chose to leak this unworkable version to the press in an attempt to hinder progress for months, we, along with @fund_defi, @coincenter, @BlockchainAssn, @SolanaInstitute, @a16zcrypto, @paradigm and other allies have educated lawmakers, including CCM, on the need for dev protections in Clarity to ensure the success of this industry, especially as it relates to the competitiveness and national security of the United States we will continue to engage, in good faith, with those willing to work with us to resolution, but we will not entertain bad faith attempts to criminalize devs who publish and contribute to non-controlling, non-custodial software

This is not a constructive or serious proposal from these groups, and it actually shows their hand: they want every software developer to be treated like a financial intermediary even when that isn’t what they are/ the technology is doing. Countless hours have been spent working with law enforcement groups to address their concerns and make it clear what Clarity Act does and does not do, and the response to that hard work appears to be an 11th hour DOA “offer” via press release. This is not what good faith looks like. We remain available to work productively with lawmakers and stakeholders who actually want to do so.

many have missed this great section added to CLARITY protection for self custody coins from being deemed “lost” under abandoned property laws due to onchain inactivity or dormancy, with federal preemption over state laws as well ‘noah doe’ wouldn’t like to see this 👀

One year ago, I knew almost nothing about crypto. A year later, I've gained a much deeper appreciation for the intersection of innovation, consumer protection, and public policy. Here are a few thoughts on what I've learned and why I believe this conversation is about much more than digital assets. Why now is the time for Congress to pass The Clarity Act with essential protections for developers. Thank you to the incredible team at the @fund_defi for expanding my perspective and challenging me to think differently every day.

🚨🚨 National Fraternal Order of Police Endorse Clarity Act “…. the FOP's initial concerns have been satisfactorily addressed and we look forward to working with you to get the amended bill passed.”

The @GLFOP now supports the Clarity Act! Today's progress didn't happen by accident. It's the result of countless conversations, meaningful engagement, and real changes made to address law enforcement concerns while preserving innovation. Three titles, 25 provisions, numerous thoughtful conversations about how to address illicit finance. Thank you to the Senators, their staffs, and the White House for working together to move this forward.

With Clarity back in the spotlight, one particular topic generating angst is the BRCA. @valkenburgh has written about this. @davidzmorris has written about this. @amandatums and DeFi education fund have written about this. However, I want to make a specific point clear on why this is such a big issue after the Tornado Cash case and @rstormsf's conviction for unlicensed money transmission. First, the crime he was convicted of did not require intent. It was "you did a thing where you needed to have a license for X, and you did not have a license for X". It's that simple. Those sorts of crimes are a special class where it's exceptionally important that, if you are going to enforce them, the obligation be clear, understandable, and known beforehand. Second, Roman was NOT convicted of conspiracy crimes around money laundering and sanctions. The jury couldn't come to a decision on those. Those crimes require some amount of knowledge and/or intent, meaning if you genuinely did not know the funds were criminal, and weren't so grossly negligent that any half-assed idiot should have known, you can't be convicted. So what's the problem? Why do I think we need the BRCA? Why have I been on my own high horse in the newsletter about this repeatedly? The reason: because the government itself cannot fucking tell us where the line is for money transmission. One, I think of Roman's conviction stands at the district court, this is the best and strongest line of appeal, possibly all the way to the top in the current era. If the government itself cannot tell me where the line is, that's a problem. Don't believe me? FinCEN, the people who look at this, published guidance about control and how money transmission works that drew a clear line, because it's important that your web browser, your ISP, and your computer manufacturer are not money transmitters. They aren't and can't be licensed, they cannot meaningfully fulfill those obligations, and saying they have to amounts to simply banning things, including all kinds of speech. The DoJ, on the other hand, because the prosecutors were entirely indifferent to the secondary consequences of their actions, did the equivalent of bombing a bus full of schoolchildren to kill one bad guy by arguing that, you know, you actually don't need control, you just need some undisclosed and undefined combination of things that feel, to a boomer who doesn't understand technology, like money transmission happened. Which now literally means your web browser is probably a money transmitter, if you understand how this stuff works. That is not good. And the implications of that go far, far beyond crypto. One, for basic rule of law and fair notice about crimes, but two, because for the love of god, your web browser is NOT a money transmitter and you need a clear, defining line as to where that boundary is so people can stay on either side of it. Or, in the simplest terms, if the people who were responsible for giving you a license would have said "no you don't need one" and the DoJ prosecutes you anyways for not having a license, something is horribly, horribly broken.

@defenddevspac launched today is doing one thing: supporting lawmakers and candidates that support developers. Thanks to @glzavatone for creating this much-needed organization and to @berniemoreno for championing the BRCA, the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act!

Clarity Act Title III ("Responsible Innovation in Decentralized Finance") was added to the Clarity Act to address concerns related to illicit finance and digital assets. It did not exist in the September draft. It was specifically added in response to concerns raised by prosecutors/law enforcement, to provide even more tools than were already in Title II ("Protecting Against Illicit Finance"). Anyone saying this bill does not give enough tools or runway for law enforcement to go after bad actors should *actually read* read Title II or Title III.