Key Takeaways:
- Solana Institute is urging the Senate not to strip developer protections from the CLARITY Act.
- Industry leaders say that open source developers should not be treated as a financial intermediary.
- Backers argued that good governance is crucial to maintaining blockchain’s U.S. innovation.
As Washington debates crypto-regulation, one question is emerging more prominently: what role should the regulators play in the lives of the developers constructing public blockchain networks?
Solana Institute CEO Kristin Smith is urging lawmakers to keep legal safeguards for open-source developers, validators and non-custodial infrastructure providers in place as the CLARITY Act inches toward a vote in the Senate.
Read More: CLARITY Act Gains Momentum as Ripple Backs Rules for 67M U.S. Crypto Holders
Solana Institute Backs Developer-Friendly CLARITY Act
On X, Smith noted that any movement towards relaxing protections for developers is likely to accelerate blockchain innovation outside of the U.S. and is unrealistic in the Senate for the CLARITY Act.
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
Smith says over 60 crypto founders and executives have signed an open letter supporting the legislation that recommends a compromise that safeguards provisions from removing the distinction between software builders and intermediaries.
The focus of the discussion is on the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act (BRCA), which intends to ensure ease of doing business for those software providers and infrastructure operators that do not hold customer assets and operate user transactions.
Read More: Coinbase CEO Says CLARITY Bill Nears Breakthrough
Industry Pushes Back Against Broad Regulatory Definitions
The industry’s biggest worry is that regulators may adapt old financial principles to organizations that operate in a manner that has nothing to do with a bank, broker, or exchange.
Though it may sound counterintuitive at first glance, Smith said a validator must not be viewed as a broker; no matter how useful the published code is to others, the developer is not a financial service provider.
BRCA Aims to Shield Open-Source Developers From Financial Rules
Supporters of the BRCA are aware that the legal uncertainty that is preventing blockchain innovation from competing with other legal frameworks is a problem.
They claim that the developers creating decentralized methods can’t ever block accounts, transfer money or take direct control over transactions. For this reason, implementing intermediate regulations could lead to substantial uncertainty for the software developer.
Smith also noted that the number of American developers of open-source software had fallen behind share of the global market in recent years, and proposed that the gray area of regulations may push projects and talent toward more favorable jurisdictions.
Supporters Say Clarity Strengthens Enforcement
Those who champion the bill put the idea of less oversight over developers to rest.
Rather, they say, it is possible to differentiate between the developers and custodial service providers to better allow the attention of regulators and law enforcement agencies on the entities that actually maintain customer assets, having trading platforms, or facilitating illegal activities.
Smith cited doers who used to work for the national security, intelligence and law enforcement agencies and have said that the lack of clarity makes it difficult for authorities to enforce the laws to determine who’s actually a good guy.
