Coin Center Director Peter Van Valkenburgh directly warned about the future of cryptocurrency regulation in the US, citing the debate surrounding the Clarity Act.
In a comment published in X magazine, he claimed: The real risk lies not in more regulation, but in leaving developers without clear legal protection.He says that opens the door to scenarios of regulatory persecution and political discretion.
According to a report from CriptoNoticias, the Clarity Act is more stalled than ever, and the proposed deadline of March 1st for bankers and crypto entrepreneurs to reach an agreement is far from reality.
In this regard, Van Valkenburgh questioned that without laws like Clarity, the ecosystem could be subject to heavy-handed interpretation by various federal agencies. In addition to stricter interpretations of rules on securities, money transfers and anti-laundering obligations, he also mentioned the possibility of expanding regulations for developers of privacy tools.
The Coin Center manager also warned that the problem will be political, not just technical. In his opinion, without legal protections for software and open infrastructure, the sector will be left at the mercy of “prosecutorial discretion, political fads, and fear.” In that context, he said there was a real risk that both hardline national security sectors and authoritarian currents could use vague laws against neutral or dissident technologies.
For Van Valkenburgh, the discussion on clarity should not focus on the current government, but on protecting the sector from future governments. His message was straightforward. If Congress misses this opportunity, the result could be an environment of what he himself summed up as “crypto hell,” characterized by legal uncertainty, regulatory pressure, and greater threats to innovation.
What does “cryptocurrency hell” mean without the Clarity Act?
In his analysis, Van Valkenburgh went beyond the abstract to outline what that scenario would look like in the absence of clear restrictive legislation.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) may continue to broadly use 18 U.S.C. Treat and prosecute developers of privacy tools as unauthorized senders, even if their functionality is purely technical.
at the same time, Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) may have leeway to rescind previous guidance It then takes a more proactive stance and classifies most crypto assets as securities. Additionally, attempts to expand the definition of “intermediary” under the Exchange Act may be revived, impacting how developer and infrastructure provider software interacts with tokenized assets.
In that respect, Treasury and FinCEN may seek stricter interpretation of Bank Secrecy Actexpands the concept of “financial institution” and imposes AML (anti-money laundering) and KYC (know your customer) obligations on parties within the decentralized web, including those that do not hold funds.
Under this scenario, Van Valkenburgh’s warning goes beyond legislative disputes and focuses on determining whether the future will be governed by clear rules or by changing interpretations of regulators that will affect the development of the ecosystem.
(Tag Translate)Cryptocurrency
