Peter Van Valkenburgh, Executive Director of Coin Center, highlighted a decisive shift in congressional debates over digital asset market structure. After months of negotiations on technical matters—including how to classify tokens, handle yield on stablecoins, and divide oversight between federal agencies—the discussion in the Senate has now reached what he describes as the core issue.
At stake is whether Americans will retain the ability to create and interact with decentralized, permissionless blockchain systems on U.S. soil without facing disproportionate legal risks.
We've had to work through a lot of difficult issues in the debate over market structure in Congress (token classification, yield, shared agency authority). But we are now getting to the heart of the matter in the Senate:
Whether Americans will be allowed to build and use…
— Peter Van Valkenburgh (@valkenburgh) February 10, 2026
Central to this protection are provisions drawn from the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act (BRCA), integrated into the broader Digital Asset Market CLARITY Act.
These safeguards clarify that developers and operators of non-custodial infrastructure—those who never take control of users’ funds or private keys—are not treated as traditional money transmitters under federal law.
Without them, open-source builders could face prosecution under statutes like 18 U.S.C. § 1960 simply for publishing code that enables peer-to-peer transactions.
Van Valkenburgh frames the choice starkly: Will policymakers prioritize unfettered innovation and individual rights, or will concerns over national security and streamlined law enforcement take precedence?
He contrasts two visions of financial infrastructure.
One mirrors the traditional banking model that has prevailed for decades—centralized systems owned and operated by major financial institutions, where transactions are routinely monitored by corporations and government entities without warrants or specific suspicion.
The alternative envisions money and digital assets moving securely and confidentially across open networks built and governed by the public itself, much like the decentralized internet protocols that power modern communication.
The Coin Center leader urges close scrutiny of which lawmakers align with each side.
He raises practical privacy concerns that transcend partisan lines: Should a Republican official gain instant visibility into whether a constituent supported reproductive rights causes? Or a Democratic counterpart learn immediately about firearm purchases?
More broadly, he questions whether any administration should hold unchecked power to exclude individuals from the global economy without judicial oversight or trial.
These arguments tap into longstanding American principles of privacy, personal liberty, and due process.
Van Valkenburgh positions permissionless infrastructure not as a niche technology issue but as a test of whether the United States will embrace the decentralized ethos that has driven blockchain’s global growth or default to legacy systems that concentrate power in the hands of a few intermediaries.
The timing is critical.
The CLARITY Act, which passed the House with bipartisan support in 2025, is now under intense review in the Senate Banking Committee.
Earlier sticking points around stablecoin rewards and agency jurisdiction have largely been addressed, clearing the path for this deeper debate on developer protections and self-custody rights.
Industry advocates, including Coin Center, warn that diluting BRCA-style safeguards could chill domestic innovation, drive talent overseas, and ultimately weaken U.S. influence over the standards that will define tomorrow’s financial rails.
As negotiations continue, Van Valkenburgh’s message is clear: the outcome will determine whether the next generation of financial technology remains open, resilient, and aligned with constitutional values—or becomes another layer of the surveilled, gatekept status quo.
Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle now face a defining moment.
Their positions will signal whether America chooses to lead in building the open infrastructure of the future or cedes that role to jurisdictions more willing to protect builders and users.