The Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act of 2026 defines who qualifies as a non-controlling developer or provider of distributed ledger services and states they shall not be treated as money transmitters under federal law. It sets out definitions for key terms including developer or provider, digital asset, distributed ledger, and distributed ledger service, and creates a narrow safe harbor for those who do not have unilateral control over transactions involving digital assets.
The bill also restricts the use of registration requirements that resemble money transmitter rules for activities such as publishing software, maintaining custody infrastructure, or providing related services. Finally, it includes rules of construction to ensure the measure does not alter other laws or create new liabilities or preempt state enforcement when laws are consistent with the act.
At a Glance
What It Does
The act creates a safe harbor for non-controlling developers or providers of distributed ledger services, clarifying they are not money transmitters under federal law and should not face registration solely for their described activities. It also preserves existing classifications under other laws and does not preempt state enforcement where consistent with the act.
Who It Affects
Actors like developers who publish software to facilitate distributed ledgers, providers that maintain distributed ledger services, and entities offering custody or infrastructure support for digital assets.
Why It Matters
Provides regulatory clarity for open or non-centralized blockchain projects and fintechs, reducing regulatory friction and enabling innovation while preserving other AML and financial laws.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill introduces a formal safe harbor for a subset of blockchain actors—non-controlling developers or providers of distributed ledger services—by limiting the federal money transmission framework’s reach over their activities. It defines who counts as a developer or provider, what constitutes a digital asset, what a distributed ledger is, and what qualifies as a distributed ledger service, with the intent of ensuring that these actors are not treated as money transmitters.
The law emphasizes that publishing software, providing custody-related tools, or maintaining infrastructure for a distributed ledger, when performed by non-controlling developers, should not automatically trigger money transmitter status. The act also sets out limitations on registration requirements that are “substantially similar” to those for money transmitters and makes clear these limitations apply only to the described activities after the date of enactment.
In addition, the act includes a rules-of-construction clause to avoid broad changes to how other laws classify or regulate blockchain actors. It clarifies that the measure does not alter whether a developer or provider is subject to other laws, does not expand intellectual property rights, does not bar states from enforcing laws that are consistent with it, and does not create any new causes of action or liabilities inconsistent with the section.
The overall effect is to narrow federal regulatory risk for specific open or non-centralized blockchain actors, while maintaining the broader legal framework governing financial institutions and AML obligations.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill creates a safe harbor for non-controlling developers or providers from being treated as money transmitters.
It defines key terms: developer or provider, digital asset, distributed ledger, and distributed ledger service.
Registration requirements substantially similar to money transmitter rules cannot be imposed solely for the listed activities.
It preserves other laws and does not preempt states enforcing consistent laws.
It includes a rules-of-construction clause limiting effects on IP, other laws, and liability.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
The act may be cited as the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act of 2026. This provision names the statute and sets the scope for the proposed federal safe harbor in the context of money transmission law.
Definitions for key terms
This section defines 'developer or provider,' 'digital asset,' 'distributed ledger,' and 'distributed ledger service.' It also defines 'non-controlling developer or provider' as one that lacks unilateral, independent authority to control or initiate transactions involving digital assets without third-party consent.
Treatment and safe harbor
Notwithstanding other laws, a non-controlling developer or provider shall not be treated as a money transmitting business under 31 U.S.C. 5330 or as engaging in money transmission under 18 U.S.C. 1960, as amended by the act. It further provides that such entities shall not be subject to registration requirements substantially similar to those for money transmitters solely on the basis of publishing software, providing custody infrastructure, or offering related services to distributed ledgers.
Rules of construction
The section clarifies that the act does not affect whether a blockchain service provider is classified as a money transmitter under other laws, nor does it expand intellectual property rights. It also confirms that states may continue to enforce laws consistent with the act and that the act does not create new liability or override otherwise applicable state or local law.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Finance across all five countries.
Explore Finance in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Non-controlling developers or providers of distributed ledger services—such as software publishers, custody infrastructure providers, and maintenance services—gain regulatory certainty and avoid unintended federal money transmitter classifications.
- Open-source or community-driven distributed ledger projects and tooling communities benefit from reduced regulatory friction and a clearer operating scope.
- Fintech platforms and digital asset ecosystems built on distributed ledgers gain predictable compliance pathways, enabling innovation and faster product development.
Who Bears the Cost
- Traditional money transmitters and certain incumbent financial intermediaries may face a narrower federal scope of oversight for specific blockchain actors, potentially affecting their compliance approach.
- Regulators may need to recalibrate enforcement priorities and guidance for actors that fall under the safe harbor, which could entail transitional oversight adjustments.
- States and other jurisdictions may need to align their laws and enforcement practices to avoid conflicts with the safe harbor, creating transitional compliance considerations for some actors.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is whether providing a clearly bounded safe harbor for non-controlling developers will foster innovation without creating regulatory gaps that could be exploited or undermine AML/compliance frameworks.
The act’s safe harbor creates a deliberate division between certain non-controlling developers and traditional money transmitters, aiming to spur innovation while maintaining core anti-money-laundering protections through other frameworks. However, regulatory attention remains necessary for the broader ecosystem, including actors who do not fit the safe harbor’s criteria.
The tension lies in balancing a clear, streamlined federal path for these actors with the risk that reduced federal oversight could complicate enforcement or enable evasion of existing AML and consumer-protection requirements. Questions remain about how the safe harbor interacts with state regimes and with future updates to federal financial laws.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.