Recently, U.S. Senators Ron Wyden and Cynthia Lummis sent an open letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland, questioning his approach to tracing encryption software services. This incident has triggered a new round of debate on digital asset legislation.
In the letter, the two senators pointed out that the action of treating non-custodial crypto services as unregistered money transmission businesses violates existing interpretations. They emphasized that relevant regulations require that the service provider must take over the funds to be considered a transmitter, and the software itself should not be held responsible for illegal finance. This action is considered to be likely to treat software developers as criminals, raising serious concerns about freedom of speech.
The background of this incident is the US Department of Justice's pursuit of cryptocurrency services. It is understood that the Department of Justice regards non-custodial crypto services as unregistered money transmission businesses, which has aroused widespread concern and controversy in the industry. Non-custodial crypto services refer to those crypto services that do not directly control user funds, such as crypto wallets and trading software. These services usually only provide a platform for users to send and receive cryptocurrencies without directly taking over users' assets.
The two senators said in the letter that this practice could pose a threat to developers of encryption software because they could be convicted of crimes for providing such services. They stressed that this practice violates the interpretation of existing laws and also poses a serious threat to free speech.
The letter also highlights the debate in Congress over digital asset legislation. Although the bill is expected to receive a vote in the House of Representatives soon, the chances of comprehensive legislation becoming law are slim. The incident has once again sparked discussions on how to find a balance between protecting consumer rights and maintaining innovation.
The industry has different reactions to this incident. Some people believe that this practice is an infringement of the First Amendment of the US Constitution and restricts freedom of speech. Others believe that this is a reasonable crackdown on illegal financial activities and helps protect the rights of consumers.
In general, this incident reflects that the US legislation in the field of cryptocurrency still faces many challenges. How to find a balance between protecting consumer rights and maintaining innovation will be an important topic for future legislation.
Conclusion:
As cryptocurrency becomes more popular, its regulatory issues are becoming increasingly prominent. How to strike a balance between protecting consumer rights and maintaining innovation will be an important challenge facing governments around the world. U.S. senators’ questions about the Department of Justice have undoubtedly provided new perspectives and thinking for solving this problem.
