Whatever happens to CLARITY, I’m grateful for the extraordinary amount of work that went into protecting software developers along the way. Developer liability was never the biggest-dollar issue in this bill. Market structure, securities law, commodities law—those questions understandably consumed most of the oxygen. But developer protections implicated something more fundamental: whether the law can distinguish between the person who builds a tool and the person who uses it to commit a crime. I’m especially grateful to @SenLummis and her staff. They stood up for that principle under enormous pressure and kept fighting for it through every iteration of the bill. Senator Lummis will be sorely missed when she leaves the Senate. And I’m grateful to my colleagues at @bitcoinpolicy, @fund_defi, @coincenter, and especially @valkenburgh, who kept this issue from becoming an afterthought and consistently defended the rights of people who write and publish open-source software. The legislative fight may be ending for now. The legal one is not. That matters well beyond crypto. As software becomes more autonomous, and agentic commerce increasingly blurs the line between tools and traditional intermediaries, one of the defining legal questions of this century will be whether peer-to-peer systems can exist without making the people who build the software responsible for every bad act committed through it. The answer has to be yes. The work continues.