I have not been following the latest on the CLARITY Act, but this caught my eye:
One aspect of the act that Bitcoiners have been interested in are supposed protections for open source developers.
The TFTC post references these protections:
But I also saw one of the Samourai guys' wives posting this:
I'm sure we will see more about this today, but it is certainly something to pay attention to.
So I will say, having written a few pieces of legislation in the past, that a move like what we are seeing here to clarify things is very rare and new. My understanding is that we started doing it after the Chevron clause was killed in the Supreme Court.
That being said, I think that Lauren Emily is just flat out wrong with her tweet. They went after them because there was no legislation in effect that covered what was going on at the time, and this would do so. In other words, these rules supersede the 1960 law regarding coding and developer protection. I get where she is coming from with the whole they went after my husband over this statute; however, that statute does more than what he was convicted on, and so we don't just throw them away.
If this passes as is, the Samourai guys have an easy way to not only get released but also to have their records expunged.
No side is going to get entirely what they want, I mean, just look at the bank's response to this. This though is a huge win for protections that otherwise are not there. It's far from perfect, but it does a really good job. Dems also want even more protections, and there are talks that they do not like this because they think it protects developers too much.
(d) Only says, "Hey, if you create something like crypto for ISIS, all money sent here goes to ISIS." That well, ya still get in trouble. The burden on the prosecution to show someone meaningfully did something is pretty significant and not something that is easily done.
Thanks for the nuance here. Van Valkenberg had a similar take, I think.
Not a problem! This is one of those things I feel like I can actually help people understand the government better!
So what are the tradeoffs described in the other 305 pages for recognition of this natural right of not being prosecuted for non-crimes?
This is the bill that sets up the CFTC to handle BTC, ETH, etc., instead of the SEC. It also covers some stuff with stablecoin yields that the banks were up in arms about.
Also handles some stuff like transactions to pay for food with BTC, not falling under the whole assets taxes, and some post-quantum standards stuff, among others.
309 pages is a lot of clarity. Usually, when the bill is that thick, the devil is buried in the fine print especially regarding self-custody.
That was directly covered in the GENIUS Act of 2025 but in there, it does cover self-custodial staking with a third party and some other bits and pieaces.
Page 275 of CLARITY does have
(c) SELF-CUSTODY.—A Federal agency may not prohibit, restrict, or otherwise impair the ability of a covered user to self-custody digital assets using a self-hosted wallet or other means to conduct transactions for any lawful purpose.
source
Haha exactly!!! That burden of proof is pretty significant the government has to honestly catch you saying hey I am doing this to commit a crime
https://twiiit.com/valkenburgh/status/2054176552863056221
It pays attention for many people nowadays.
https://twiiit.com/TFTC21/status/2054159064993558762