Kristin Smith, chief executive of the Solana Policy Institute, pressed the U.S. Senate on June 9, 2026, to ensure the Digital Asset Market CLARITY Act protects open-source developers, validators and non-custodial wallet providers from being treated as financial intermediaries. Her appeal puts developer classification at the center of the next crypto policy fight.
The request, backed by more than 60 crypto founders and executives, matters because a broad statutory interpretation could push software maintainers and infrastructure operators into money-transmitter or custody frameworks. For compliance teams and treasuries, that would mean higher licensing, capital and operational obligations for projects that do not hold user funds.
1/ The Clarity Act has a real shot at passing the Senate.
Getting it right means protecting the developers who build public blockchains. Getting it wrong risks pushing them – and the future of this technology – offshore.
🧵
— Kristin Smith (@KristinSmith) June 9, 2026
Developers Push Back Against Financial-Intermediary Labels
Smith made the argument in an X thread, saying that publishing or maintaining open-source blockchain code does not amount to controlling customer assets or executing transactions. The coalition cited by Smith includes Solana co-founder Anatoly Yakovenko and Solana Foundation President Lily Liu, with the group warning against bank-style regulation for neutral infrastructure providers.
The industry’s position has found some support in recent regulatory commentary. SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce said in early June that publishing open-source blockchain code is “protected speech” under the First Amendment, a framing that proponents view as support for a statutory developer carve-out.
A parallel legislative effort is also moving through the policy conversation. The bipartisan Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act, introduced in January 2026 by Senators Cynthia Lummis and Ron Wyden, seeks to prevent open-source developers from being treated as money transmitters solely for publishing code, reinforcing the push to separate software publication from asset custody.
Senate Calendar and Policy Disputes Cloud the Path
The CLARITY Act cleared the Senate Banking Committee on May 15, 2026, in a 15-9 vote and was placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar. That procedural progress keeps the bill alive, but floor consideration remains exposed to timing pressure and unresolved policy disputes.
Lawmakers now face competing demands ahead of potential action later this summer. Supporters want a firm legal perimeter for developers, validators and non-custodial wallet providers, while other stakeholders are raising concerns that could complicate the bipartisan coalition needed to move the bill forward.
Market and policy analysts have already adjusted their expectations. Galaxy Digital’s Alex Thorn reduced his 2026 enactment probability estimate from 75% to 60% as of June 9, citing a crowded congressional calendar and disputes over stablecoin yield provisions, while Polymarket odds for 2026 passage were reported at 47% on June 10.
Recent reporting also identified two additional headwinds: debates over crypto ethics rules and law-enforcement objections to the breadth of developer protections. Those concerns could slow consensus building in the Senate, especially if lawmakers seek narrower exemptions for infrastructure participants.
For legal, compliance and treasury teams, the core issue is whether Congress codifies a durable distinction between publishing software and taking custody of assets. Strong developer protections in the CLARITY Act, aligned with measures such as the BRCA, would reduce ambiguity and allow firms to calibrate controls around their actual custody and transaction-control profile.
If those protections are narrowed or delayed, the risk profile changes sharply. Code publishers, wallet developers and validators could face expanded licensing, reporting and prudential expectations, creating new operational exposure for non-custodial crypto infrastructure.
The debate now turns on how far lawmakers are willing to go in protecting open-source activity without weakening enforcement tools. For the crypto industry, the outcome will help determine whether U.S. law treats blockchain infrastructure as software architecture or regulated financial intermediation.
