Senate Judiciary Committee jointly opposes Section 604 of the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act, with the DeFi protection clause sparking a policy deadlock

RektRecovery · 2026-01-17T05:50:13+00:00

The U.S. Senate has engaged in intense debate over Section 604 of the "Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act." Two leaders of the Judiciary Committee oppose this section, believing it would weaken regulation of unlicensed fund transfers and was implemented without prior consultation. The bill debate was canceled due to opposition voices, and the DeFi community also stated that they would withdraw support if protective provisions are absent. Both sides hold firm stances.

RektRecovery

2026-01-17 05:50:13

Abstract generation in progress

【BlockBeats】The regulatory dispute in the U.S. Senate has escalated again. On January 17, the two leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee—Republican Chairman Chuck Grassley and senior Democrat Dick Durbin—jointly sent a letter to the Banking Committee, strongly opposing Section 604 of the “Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act.”

What is their core concern? This section was originally intended to protect software developers from being held criminally liable for third-party misuse of their code. Sounds reasonable, right? But the Judiciary Committee believes this would directly weaken the enforcement of federal regulations concerning unlicensed fund transfer businesses. More importantly, they were not consulted beforehand and only discovered this change in the bill now.

The two senators also cited the case of Tornado Cash developer Roman Storm. The Department of Justice’s prosecution of him indicates that current regulations are effective in holding parties accountable for unlicensed fund transfer activities. The implication is: don’t tamper with this regulatory framework.

This opposition is not isolated. The bill debate and vote scheduled for Thursday were canceled on Wednesday evening due to strong opposition. If Section 604 remains in the bill, the Judiciary Committee (which handles legal matters) will also need to sign off as a third committee, making the process more complicated.

The DeFi community is also speaking out: without these protective provisions, they might withdraw their support. The current situation is that all parties are firmly positioned, leaving little room for compromise. The Judiciary Committee’s final stance is clear—firmly oppose any clauses that weaken the government’s ability to regulate unlicensed fund transfers, including Section 604.

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

18 Likes

Reward
18
7
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

MeaninglessGwei

· 01-19 20:14

Another scene of regulatory agencies fighting each other... The Judicial Committee looked confused and just saw Clause 604, which is indeed a bit outrageous.

View OriginalReply0

OnchainArchaeologist

· 01-19 08:11

Coming back with this again? As soon as the developer protection clause was released, it hit a snag. The Judicial Committee really doesn't want to let anyone go, huh?

View OriginalReply0

BagHolderTillRetire

· 01-18 13:34

This is really incredible. Both sides oppose this clause—neither developers nor anti-money laundering efforts want to compromise. How can we break this deadlock?

View OriginalReply0

Degen4Breakfast

· 01-17 06:20

Here we go again... Developer protection and anti-money laundering enforcement, which is more important? Both are desired, right? The Roman Storm case is indeed complicated, but it's just too convenient to use it to block Article 604.

View OriginalReply0

AirdropLicker

· 01-17 06:19

It's the same old story. As soon as the developer protection clause is released, the Judicial Committee can't sit still, fearing they won't catch anyone...

View OriginalReply0

ProofOfNothing

· 01-17 05:56

It's the same deadlock again... Developers take the blame, the Justice Department enforces the law, both sides want to win, but no one wants to hear the voices of the technical people.

View OriginalReply0

OffchainOracle

· 01-17 05:51

Ha, it's the same old trick again, the deadlock between developer protection and anti-money laundering that can never be resolved. The Roman Storm case really made it clear—these people simply don't want to relinquish control. It feels like this bill is already dead before passing, with rare bipartisan opposition—this is just how it is. Developers are caught in the middle and feel uncomfortable, having to write code while being wary of potential lawsuits. Wait, they did this without prior consultation—this process is truly outrageous. Regarding Clause 604, it's essentially a power division issue; the Judicial Committee has been sidelined. DeFi wants freedom, the government wants control—this drama is far from over. The shadow of Tornado is still there; why should developers be given a free pass now? At this pace, it might get derailed again. Crypto legislation in the US has never gone smoothly. It seems developers' unions should come out and speak up, or else they'll be the ones taking the blame again.

View OriginalReply0