Yep, super simple and straightforward! Its mostly in response to the Samurai and Tornadocash cases, which charged exactly this (and drove Phoenix out of the US in response), fixing exactly the law they were charged with.

bluematt

No blockchain developer or provider of a blockchain service shall be treated as a money transmitter or as engaging in "money transmitting" (as defined under any State or Federal law), a financial institution (as defined under section 5312 of title 31, United States Code), any other State or Federal legal designation requiring licensing or registration, or triggering liability for unlicensed or unregistered conduct,

unless the developer or provider has, in the regular course of business, control over digital assets to which a user is entitled under the blockchain service or the software created, maintained, or disseminated by the blockchain developer or provider.

Unless my memory betrays me here, this was exactly the exception that was asked for since the (unreadable) 

 (under 80603) messed around with definitions of 

, making that role selectively applicable to any protocol or service developer.

It looks to me that this also limits the 

(D) any person who (for consideration) is responsible for regularly providing any service effectuating transfers of digital assets on behalf of another person.

But I'm not 100% sure, maybe someone smarter than me has thoughts about this.

bitdevs

deleted by author

[The text](https://emmer.house.gov/_cache/files/3/9/391fb470-d4a5-4eef-aedd-df1626dfb21a/BDDB1A4E71AE7CE1CBFABC4AB43BFCB2B087D8654CEACBCF0BC3EF5792D67A7A.brca-119.pdf) breaks down into:

The proposed rule:

> No blockchain developer or provider of a blockchain service shall be treated as a money transmitter or as engaging in "money transmitting" (as defined under any State or Federal law), a financial institution (as defined under section 5312 of title 31, United States Code), any other State or Federal legal designation requiring licensing or registration, or triggering liability for unlicensed or unregistered conduct,

The proposed exception: 

> unless the developer or provider has, in the regular course of business, control over digital assets to which a user is entitled under the blockchain service or the software created, maintained, or disseminated by the blockchain developer or provider.

----

Nice, clean initiative imho.

Unless my memory betrays me here, this was exactly the exception that was asked for since the (unreadable) [2022 infra bill](https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3684/text) (under 80603) messed around with definitions of `broker`, making that role selectively applicable to any protocol or service developer.

It looks to me that this also limits the `(D)` clause in there: 

> (D) any person who (for consideration) is responsible for regularly providing any service effectuating transfers of digital assets on behalf of another person.

But I'm not 100% sure, maybe someone smarter than me has thoughts about this. 