Coin Center backs Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, urges clear rules for non-custodial DeFi
Coin Center Executive Director Peter Van Valkenburgh has submitted a regulatory filing supporting the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act. In the letter, he argues that since 2018 Coin Center has pushed for a de novo federal regulatory framework for “trusted entities” in crypto, and praises the committee’s progress.
Key focus is Section 604. Coin Center says this provision is a “long-overdue” form of clarity for developers and infrastructure providers building non-custodial blockchain technologies. The group claims the bill would codify principles reflected in FinCEN’s 2019 guidance, helping reduce the risk that builders are improperly treated or prosecuted as unlicensed money transmitters.
Coin Center also highlights other parts of the bill that would clarify that truly decentralized finance (DeFi) tools—described as open-source software—should not be subjected to registration requirements designed for intermediaries. The letter frames this as aligning regulation with American values like free expression and permissionless innovation.
Overall, the filing positions the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act as a potential market-structure catalyst: clearer compliance boundaries could lower regulatory uncertainty for crypto infrastructure and DeFi developers, while preserving differentiation between software and regulated financial services.
Bullish
This filing is supportive rather than adversarial: it backs the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act and specifically argues for clearer treatment of non-custodial blockchain developers and truly decentralized DeFi tools. In trading terms, clearer rules typically reduce “headline risk” (sudden enforcement surprises), which can improve sentiment for infrastructure and DeFi-related sectors.
Historically, US policy clarity initiatives—especially those that clarify whether software/decentralized tools fall outside intermediary-style registration—tend to be received positively by markets, because they reduce the probability of broad, categorical enforcement. In the short term, traders may react to the news with modest optimism as regulatory uncertainty eases. In the long term, if provisions like Section 604 are preserved through negotiation, it could support more stable capital allocation to compliant development and liquidity.
However, this is only a letter accompanying a regulatory process, not enacted law. That limits immediate impact; the market may stay selective until the bill text advances, amendments are finalized, and enforcement guidance follows.