Category: TDC Update

From Policy Ask to Policy Win: FinCEN Recognizes Digital Identity for Customer Verification

by Mary Grace Cooney

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) and the federal banking agencies have issued new guidance confirming that banks and credit unions may use government-issued verifiable digital credentials—including state-issued mobile driver’s licenses—to verify customers under the Customer Identification Program Rule.

This is an important modernization of federal financial-crime compliance and a direct response to a regulatory clarification The Digital Chamber has repeatedly requested.

Why This Guidance Was Needed

Financial institutions increasingly serve customers through mobile applications and other digital channels, but identity-verification practices often remain rooted in physical documents. Customers may be asked to photograph and upload a driver’s license, transmit sensitive personal information, or rely on authentication methods that are vulnerable to forgery and identity theft.

Mobile driver’s licenses and other verifiable digital credentials offer a more secure alternative. They use cryptographic signatures, device binding, authentication factors, and other safeguards to help institutions determine whether a credential is authentic and belongs to the person presenting it.

Until now, however, regulatory uncertainty limited adoption. Financial institutions needed clear confirmation that these credentials could be used consistently with existing Bank Secrecy Act and Customer Identification Program obligations.

From an Ask to a Win

TDC made that clarification a specific policy priority.

In our comments on Bank Secrecy Act modernization, permitted payment stablecoin issuer requirements, and NIST’s mobile driver’s license implementation guidance, TDC urged regulators to recognize privacy-preserving digital identity and verifiable credentials as legitimate compliance tools.

In May, we publicly called on FinCEN to issue clear guidance explaining how financial institutions could use mobile driver’s licenses and other digital credentials to satisfy BSA and Customer Identification Program requirements. FinCEN has now answered that request.

The new FAQs confirm that an unexpired government-issued verifiable digital credential can qualify as “government-issued identification” under the documentary verification provisions of the Customer Identification Program Rule, provided it contains the required information and the institution has the technology, policies, and procedures necessary to use it.

The guidance also confirms that these credentials may be used when customers open accounts in person, remotely over the internet, or through another digital or virtual channel. In addition, electronic credentials issued by nongovernmental entities may also be used as a non-documentary verification method when the institution ensures an appropriate level of authentication.

Why It Matters

This guidance gives regulated institutions greater confidence to adopt stronger identity technology without waiting for Congress or regulators to rewrite the underlying rule.

Properly implemented, verifiable digital credentials can:

  • Make forged or altered identity documents easier to detect
  • Strengthen remote customer onboarding
  • Reduce dependence on easily copied physical documents
  • Prevent new fraud tactics made widely available by AI
  • Limit unnecessary collection and storage of sensitive information
  • Improve the customer experience while supporting effective compliance

The FAQs do not require institutions to accept digital credentials or create new supervisory expectations. Institutions must still form a reasonable belief that they know a customer’s true identity, address signs of fraud, and incorporate any credential into a compliant risk-based program.

That flexibility is a strength. It allows financial institutions to adopt better tools while preserving responsibility for effective identity verification.

This is how sustained policy engagement produces results: identify a barrier, develop a workable recommendation, place it consistently before the right agencies, and secure clear federal guidance.

TDC thanks FinCEN and the federal banking agencies for recognizing that modern technology can advance compliance, cybersecurity, innovation, and consumer privacy at the same time.

Read the new FinCEN FAQs

Decoding Digital Assets: Empowering Policymakers with Tax Facts 

by Simi Awe

Digital assets are transforming the global economy at lightning speed. Regulators and lawmakers are actively trying to understand these mechanics to establish tax rules of the road, most recently in market structure legislation awaiting the U.S. Senate’s consideration.  

To secure U.S. leadership in digital assets for generations to come, we must address the burdensome nature of the current tax code on companies and consumers, and find a path to tax parity with traditional assets. We must resolve technical ambiguities regarding the timing and sourcing of staking rewards and push back against disproportionate compliance burdens like reward bifurcation.  

Finally, we will ensure that new rules, such as de minimis exceptions, thoughtfully address real-world administrability concerns. By tackling these issues head-on during the upcoming markup and beyond, we will foster domestic capital formation and build a tax code that supports industry growth. 

Advancing Tax Clarity

TDC has worked with the House Ways and Means Committee throughout the current legislative effort to help understand the technology and what kind of tax framework makes sense for consumers and the industry. 

  • In May, we outlined key pillars for a digital asset tax framework in a letter to the committee and reinforced those priorities in a formal statement for the record for June’s hearing. We have also shared technical analysis with legislators on the digital asset taxation legislative package. 
  • Direct Advocacy: Beyond formal submissions, we met directly with the vast majority of Ways and Means offices to advocate for comprehensive, bipartisan solutions conducting over 70 meetings that span more than 50 hours of direct engagement. 
  • Educational Roundtables: We have hosted 7 educational roundtables as part of our ongoing series, providing staffers with the insights needed to navigate this evolving landscape and creating a safe space for deeper questions about the causes and effects of the current U.S. tax structure. 
  • Bicameral Focus: Alongside these House engagements, our advocacy and education efforts in the Senate remain highly active. 

Whether through one-on-one briefings, educational roundtables, or technical documents on high-impact issues like staking, TDC provides lawmakers with an open line to industry experts so they can understand the technology they regulate. Our commitment and engagement ensures that every policy maker can make sound decisions for their constituents and the industry. 

What’s Next  

With the House Ways and Means Committee expected to mark up a digital asset tax package this September, we must maintain engagement to replace ambiguity with statutory certainty to boost tax compliance, protect retail investors, and secure U.S. leadership. 

TDC’s Wins on Bank Secrecy Act Modernization 

by Neil Humphrey

The Digital Chamber is directly impacting the rules taking shape in agencies implementing the GENIUS Act.

On June 22, FinCEN and the federal banking regulators proposed new Customer Identification Program (CIP) requirements for permitted payment stablecoin issuers (PPSIs). The proposal is the latest in a series of rulemakings implementing the GENIUS Act and would establish how stablecoin issuers identify and verify customers.

TDC directly impacted how the proposal has improved, as several provisions reflect policy recommendations from our earlier comments to FinCEN, OFAC, OCC, FDIC, and NCUA.

For example, TDC submitted extensive comments in June responding to FinCEN’s initial PPSI AML/CFT rulemaking and its broader BSA modernization proposal. A central theme of those submissions was that financial-crime obligations should follow the activities an entity actually performs.

  • TDC argued that a stablecoin issuer should have BSA obligations when it directly serves a customer — for example, through issuance, redemption, custody, exchange, or transfer services — but should not be responsible for every downstream transaction simply because it issued the stablecoin being used.
  • We also strongly urged FinCEN to preserve the distinction between financial intermediaries and technology providers. Developers, non-custodial software providers, node operators, APIs, and other neutral infrastructure should not be treated as financial institutions when they don’t accept or transmit value, nor exercise custody or control over customer assets.
  • Finally, TDC encouraged FinCEN to modernize compliance by embracing privacy-preserving digital identity, verifiable credentials, blockchain analytics, AI, and other emerging Regulatory Technology tools.

Wins for Privacy and Safety

The new CIP proposal reflects significant movement toward that framework.

Most importantly, the Agencies propose limiting CIP information collection to primary-market customers who interact directly with the issuer, rather than attempting to impose CIP on secondary-market users. The proposal recognizes that issuers generally lack the customer information needed to identify downstream users and accordingly narrows the proposed customer definition.

The proposal also contains vital protections for developers and decentralized infrastructure. Its definition of “digital asset service provider” excludes distributed-ledger protocols, developers of self-custodial software interfaces, validators and distributed-ledger operators, and certain peer-to-peer liquidity activity.

The proposal recognizes the potential of digital identity, including verifiable credentials such as state-issued mobile IDs and privacy-preserving credentials, and proposes a flexible, risk-based approach to their use.

These principles directly align with what TDC has been advocating for: regulating financial activity without inadvertently regulating the underlying technology and allowing regulated companies to use better technology to achieve stronger compliance outcomes.

Building on the Progress

TDC’s latest response asks agencies to provide greater clarity around account relationships, redemption-only customers, embedded-finance arrangements and third-party reliance, while expanding regulatory certainty for digital identity, blockchain analytics, ecosystem monitoring, AI-enabled compliance, cybersecurity tools, and other innovative compliance technologies.

There is still work to do before the rules are finalized, but we are encouraged by the latest updates and improvements. TDC’s engagement is inserting industry expertise into workable federal policy. The latest proposal demonstrates the value of sustained, technically detailed advocacy — and provides an important foundation for the next phase of GENIUS Act implementation.

Quantum-Proofing Bitcoin: Why BIP-360 and BIP-361 Can’t Wait

by Nicole Rankin

By: Ava Amelio

The Quantum Threat: And Why It Is Growing 

Bitcoin’s security rests on a simple promise: only the owner of a private key can spend the coins tied to it. A cryptographically relevant quantum computer, or CRQC, could break that promise by working backward from an exposed public key to the private key behind it. New research from Google Quantum AI cut the estimated hardware needed to pull this off by roughly 20x, down to fewer than 10,000 physical qubits.1 The same research puts nearly 7 million BTC, close to a third of the supply, in addresses where the public key is already out in the open and ready to attack.2 Two Bitcoin Improvement Proposals, BIP-360 and BIP-361, lay out how the network closes that gap. 

Why This Matters Now More Than Ever  

Bitcoin has no CEO who can push a patch. Every rule change needs miners, node operators, and users to separately choose to adopt it – a process that took years even for widely-supported upgrades like SegWit and Taproot. That slow clock is exactly why the runway needs to open now: the hardware estimates keep shrinking, but the migration path doesn’t get any shorter. A quantum attacker also doesn’t need to hit every wallet at once. One exposed key is enough, and nothing stops the attacker from sitting on stolen funds for months before moving them, timing the theft to avoid drawing notice from chain watchers.3 

  • BIP-360 introduces a new output type, Pay-to-Merkle-Root (P2MR), so newly minted coins never expose a raw public key in the first place. 
  • BIP-361 sets a public deadline for moving already-exposed coins to quantum-resistant addresses, after which the network stops honoring spends from the old, vulnerable signature types. 
  • Together, they cover both the coins Bitcoin hasn’t minted yet and the coins already sitting in the open. 

TDC’s View 

We recommend implementing both BIP-360 and BIP-361. Bitcoin’s coordination problem is also its risk-distribution problem: no central authority can force anyone to upgrade, so the burden of acting falls unevenly. Well-capitalized exchanges and miners can migrate on their own timeline. Retail holders and dormant accounts, including an estimated 1.7 million BTC in wallets whose owners are lost, dead, or simply gone, cannot act at all, no matter how much warning they get. Waiting for a crisis to force the industry’s hand doesn’t spread that exposure more fairly; instead, it leaves ordinary and absent holders exposed while everyone with the resources to move fast does exactly that. A public timeline is what makes the migration workable instead of a scramble, and it’s the best option the network has to protect the self-custody promise that makes Bitcoin worth defending. 

What Happens Next 

BIP-360 and BIP-361 are proposals, not settled code. They still need the community to build consensus, wallets and exchanges to support the new address types, and node operators to adopt the rules that enforce them. We will continue to track the process and keep members briefed as it moves through review, pressing the industry to treat this as a planning problem to solve now, rather than an emergency to manage later. 

TDC Responds to the FTC’s Proposed AI Accuracy Policy

by Neil Humphrey

By Jean-Philippe Beaudet

On July 29, The Digital Chamber’s AI and Quantum Working Group submitted comments to the Federal Trade Commission on its proposed policy statement addressing artificial intelligence accuracy. 

The Proposed Statement treats bias mitigation as potentially deceptive. This premise does not match how AI systems are built, tested, or deployed. Model outputs, instead, reflect the models’ training data and choices of their human designers.  

Our members already run model validation, bias testing, and remediation to meet federal and state law, contractual terms, and enterprise risk standards. Ensuring facial recognition systems supplied to government agencies can recognize all phenotypical indicators equally (they work on both black and white faces) requires fine-tuning models based on expected population demographics, for instance. A policy that casts that work as suspect would put them in conflict with obligations other agencies already impose. 

We advised the Commission that: 

  • There is no universal neutral baseline. Every model output reflects the data and the choices that produced it. Across platforms, countries, and over time, we can see that untreated models, trained on historically biased data, reproduce those biases. The empirical record on lending, hiring, healthcare, and pricing models supports this. 
  • Treating mitigation as deception reverses the logic of Section 5. Consumers expecting neutral, objective outputs would not be served by FTC actions that mandate inaccurate model outputs. Section 5 protects consumers from deceptive practices, unfair competition, and operations that could violate their civil rights protections – like reducing the quality of their response based on their gender. There is a greater risk in presenting an unmitigated system as an objective score than in treating these outputs. 
    • For example, researchers in the world-renowned Nature journal recently found that, “when generating and evaluating resumes, [a leading LLM] assumes that women are younger and less experienced, rating older male applicants as of higher quality.”  
    • As AI is used both to prepare job documents and to review them, this tendency offers a prime example of the risks of unmitigated bias in AI workforce applications.  
  • The Proposed Statement cannot be read apart from the rollback of disparate-impact liability. Disparate impact is a legal concept that refers to a policy or practice that looks fair and nominally treats everyone equally but harms a protected group more than others in practice. In a disparate impact claim, you do not need to prove intention; you only need to show that the final result is unfair. Because AI has neither personhood nor intention, disparate impact treatment is often the only viable route for challenging algorithmic discrimination. 
  • Section 5 should reach material misrepresentations, not mitigation itself. The Commission can pursue firms that misrepresent what their systems do without treating responsible testing as presumptively deceptive. 
  • A reasonable federal floor beats broad preemption. TDC supports harmonization between a coherent national regulatory floor that balances innovation with consumer protections and coordinated state regulation. Industry concerns about regulatory fragmentation can and should be addressed through tiered, multi-state alignment on specific legislative remedies. 

Read the full comment letter here. 

If you have any questions, please reach out to policy@digitalchamber.org. 

Built to Scale: A Blueprint for State-level Blockchain and Emerging Technology Legislation 

by Neil Humphrey

As Congress and federal regulators continue to seek consensus on modernizing rules and developing the right guardrails for digital assets, AI, and blockchain, states across the U.S. are not waiting to adopt their own rules. Across the country, policymakers are developing legislation around these emerging technologies as they understand embracing the potential will attract businesses, create high-paying jobs, and create solutions to make government more efficient, transparent, and profitable.  

But there is a risk: 50 states can also create 50 vastly different rules from state to state. Disjointed legislating can lead to fragmentation and, unintentionally, more uncertainty for innovators in their state. 

The Digital Chamber State Network is sharing model state legislation to help expand best practices at the state regulatory level, designed as an iterative, adaptable tool that can serve as a starting point for policymakers to build informed legislation rather than start from scratch.  

These models provide a constructive foundation that states can adapt to their own needs while promoting greater consistency across the country on the emerging technology issues defining this generation. 

The Digital Chamber’s model legislation page houses our initial library of bills and addresses several of the most important state-level legislative issues, including: 

  • Blockchain & Digital Asset Task Forces to create a structured, informed pathway for states beginning to explore these issues. 
  • Stablecoins & GENIUS Act Comparability to help states think through regulation alongside the emerging federal framework. 
  • Digital Asset Strategic Reserve Funds with clear standards around structure, custody, and eligible assets. 
  • Digital Identity focused on secure identity infrastructure and potential government applications. 
  • Virtual Currency & Money Transmission to promote greater consistency across state licensing regimes. 
  • AI and Deepfake Transparency to adapt a fully transparent and independent way to prove which images and videos are real and which are AI-generated, increasing trust. 

As we continue working with groups at the state level to educate policymakers on the potential of emerging technology, we remain committed to building bipartisan consensus on key issues and bolstering states’ roles in using blockchain’s potential to grow wealth, jobs, and add security and transparency to government to build a brighter economic future for all Americans.  

For the full suite of model bills, visit our website: state.digitalchamber.org/model-legislation. 


Stablecoins Aren’t Emptying Community Banks, Wall Street Might

by Neil Humphrey

There are renewed efforts from certain banking lobbies to reopen what was a closed issue reached through bipartisan compromise on stablecoin rewards in the Clarity Act. Opponents warn that rewards on stablecoins will prompt Americans to withdraw trillions of dollars from community banks, lending will collapse, and Main Street will pay the price. 

In the year since the GENIUS Act, we have seen the opposite effect. Stablecoin adoption has surged while bank deposits have grown. Academic research finds that reasonable stablecoin rewards help banks compete by paying depositors more without reducing aggregate lending. As discussed below, academic research from Cornell, the White House, and Galaxy Research all found that the rise of U.S. dollar-denominated stablecoins also increases deposits in U.S. financial institutions of all sizes.  Stablecoins also do not mechanically remove dollars from banks: GENIUS requires permitted payment stablecoins to hold qualifying reserves, including bank deposits, while substantial stablecoin demand comes from foreign users whose dollars were never held at U.S. community banks. 

Meanwhile, the largest banks are building tokenized deposits that can compete directly for deposits now held by community banks. A dollar converted into a stablecoin may remain in or return to the banking system through reserves. A dollar moved from a community bank into a money-center bank’s tokenized deposit is more direct: the smaller bank loses the deposit, and the larger bank gains it. The debate should therefore focus on evidence and competition, not the most alarming hypothetical which has virtually zero empirical support. 

Background on CLARITY Act Stablecoin Rewards Text 

The current version of the Clarity Act, which the Senate will consider in mid-September, substantially restricts stablecoin yield. Specifically, Section 10404 provides a “Prohibiting Interest and Yield on Payment Stablecoins,” and bars a covered party from directly or indirectly paying interest or yield to a U.S. customer solely for holding payment stablecoins or on a stablecoin balance in a manner “economically or functionally equivalent” to interest on an interest-bearing bank deposit.1 

Clarity tightens regulation on digital asset service providers and affiliates, addressing the purported intermediary “loophole” identified by banking organizations while preserving transaction-based rewards that are not equivalent to deposit interest. This bipartisan compromise, led by Senators Alsobrooks and Tillis after months of negotiations, allowed all stakeholders to participate and provide input. Banks, credit cards, and payment platforms routinely use transaction-based rewards. Stablecoins should not uniquely be prevented from competing the same way. 

The Overwhelming Weight of Academic Authority Rebuts Deposit Flight Narrative  

In an attempt to further restrict how Americans can use their stablecoins, banking groups routinely assert that $6.6 trillion in deposits could be at risk if stablecoin holders receive yield or rewards “drain deposits” and constrict community lending. That is not an empirical forecast of actual deposit flight, but is instead the number of total U.S. domestic deposits.2 The number of domestic deposits at U.S. banking institutions would need to go to zero for that number to be relevant.    

What is relevant is what empirically happens in our banking system when somebody replaces a fiat dollar with a stablecoin dollar. Galaxy Research analyzed likely stablecoin funding sources, and concluded only roughly 30% to 40% of incremental stablecoin funding is likely to come from U.S. bank deposits. $100 of new stablecoin issuance generates approximately $32 of additional U.S. credit, producing about $400 billion in additional credit through 2030.3 That is fundamentally different from assuming every dollar entering a stablecoin is a one-to-one dollar disappearing from a bank because the majority of stablecoin funding is likely to come from offshore demand, physical currency, money-market funds, and other sources.4 

Professor Lin William Cong’s Cornell-affiliated research reaches a similar conclusion. Stablecoins do not mechanically drain deposits. A competitive outside option can instead cause banks to raise deposit rates to retain customers, attracting deposits and increasing lending.5 Bank Policy Institute’s public commentary characterized Professor Cong’s research as evidence that yield-bearing stablecoins could destroy deposits. Professor Cong rejected that interpretation, explaining that the model expressly contains a “competition-dominant” region in which greater stablecoin attractiveness raises deposit rates, deposits, lending, and consumer welfare.6 

Recent history reinforces the difference between deposit reallocation and credit destruction. During the 2022-23 tightening cycle, deposits moved from rate-insensitive institutions toward rate-responsive digital banks. Those receiving banks expanded lending while aggregate credit supply remained broadly stable. 

Finally, the White House commissioned a study into the issue conducted by the White House Council of Economic Advisers, which tested the banking industry’s argument directly and released its findings in April 2026.7 Its baseline estimate found that eliminating stablecoin yield would increase total bank lending by only $2.1 billion, or 0.02%, while imposing approximately $800 million in welfare costs. Community banks would receive only about $500 million of additional lending, roughly 0.026%.  

Even after stacking highly adverse assumptions, there is little-to-no evidence for the claim that permitting stablecoins to earn yield like any other asset has a negative effect on community bank deposits. All available empirical studies instead found that adoption of U.S. dollar stablecoins actually increases deposits across the banking system.  

The Bigger Community-Bank Threat: Tokenized Deposits 

The banking industry’s position also contains an important inconsistency. The nation’s largest banks are currently building digital products to compete for deposits currently held at community banks. 

In June 2026, The Clearing House announced a bank-led on-chain money initiative backed by major financial institutions to enable 24/7 clearing and settlement of tokenized commercial-bank deposits across blockchain networks.8 The Digital Chamber strongly supports banks using blockchain technology, including tokenized deposits, and The Clearing House says its network is intended to be accessible to banks of all sizes. But community banks still need the technology, compliance resources, integrations, and customer reach to compete. Large banks already operate tokenized-deposit platforms and possess obvious advantages in deploying them at scale. 

The distinction matters. When a consumer purchases a stablecoin, the deposit liability may shift to the issuer’s banking relationships, and aggregate deposits depend on how reserves are allocated. Restricting stablecoin rewards while permitting large banks to compete through interest-bearing tokenized deposits therefore does not protect community banks from digital competition. It simply determines who wins it. 


notes:
[1] Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, H.R. 3633, 119th Cong. § 10404(b)-(c) (Lummis Substitute, EHF26654, July 22, 2026) (prohibiting covered parties from paying interest or yield solely in connection with holding payment stablecoins or in a manner economically or functionally equivalent to interest or yield on an interest-bearing bank deposit, while permitting rewards and incentives based on bona fide activities or transactions that are not economically or functionally equivalent to such deposit interest).

[2] American Bankers Association, Bank Policy Institute, Consumer Bankers Association, Financial Services Forum & Independent Community Bankers of America, Closing the Payment of Interest Loophole for Stablecoins  (Aug. 12, 2025) (arguing that stablecoins could produce as much as $6.6 trillion in deposit outflows if interest or yield is available).

[3] Thaddeus Pinakiewicz, Stablecoins, the GENIUS Act, and the Evolving Structure of Dollar Finance, Galaxy Research (May 7, 2026).

[4] See also Lin William Cong, Stablecoins and Banking: Deposit Dynamics, Financial Stability, and Regulatory Design (Dec. 7, 2025, appendix added Jan. 30, 2026). The paper concludes that existing evidence does not show meaningful aggregate deposit outflows attributable to stablecoin adoption and that, under realistic yield conditions, stablecoin competition can encourage more competitive deposit pricing and more efficient liquidity allocation.

[5] Cong, supra note 4. Cong’s model treats stablecoins as a competitive outside option. As their attractiveness increases, banks can respond by increasing deposit rates, thereby attracting deposits and expanding lending and intermediation. Under Cong’s updated calibration, moderate stablecoin yields of approximately 4% to 6% can increase deposit-market competition and expand credit intermediation. Contraction emerges only above roughly 6%, materially above returns available from the short-duration assets backing regulated stablecoins and therefore difficult to sustain economically.
[6] Cong, supra note 4, app. at 32-36. Responding to commentary criticizing the paper, Cong expressly rejects the characterization that meaningful stablecoin adoption necessarily reduces deposits and lending. He explains that the model contains a competition-dominant region in which increased stablecoin attractiveness increases deposit rates, deposits, lending, and consumer welfare.

[7] Council of Economic Advisers, Effects of Stablecoin Yield Prohibition on Bank Lending (Apr. 8, 2026).

[8] The Clearing House, Major Financial Institutions Unveil Bank-Led On-Chain Money Initiative (June 5, 2026) (announcing a bank-led initiative for on-chain clearing and settlement of tokenized commercial bank deposits, including 24/7 settlement and connectivity between blockchain networks and traditional payment rails). See also J.P. Morgan, Deposit Tokens: A Foundation for Stable Digital Money (2026); Citigroup, Citi Achieves Industry First: Integrating Citi Token Services with 24/7 USD Clearing for Real-Time Cross-Border Payments and Liquidity Management (Sept. 29, 2025).

State Spotlight: Gilberto Nazario of Maryland 

by Renuka Rubin

What is driving your state’s approach to digital assets and emerging technology right now?

In Maryland, the conversation around digital assets and emerging technology is being driven by a combination of economic competitiveness, workforce development, and strong grassroots leadership.

Maryland has a unique advantage with its concentration of talent, federal agencies, research institutions, and world-class universities. There is growing recognition that blockchain, digital assets, and AI can create new opportunities for entrepreneurship, investment, and job creation across the state.

A major part of that momentum comes from community-led organizations. Groups like the Maryland Digital Asset Foundation and the Maryland Blockchain Association have played an important role in educating the public, connecting stakeholders, and advancing conversations around responsible innovation. Their grassroots efforts, alongside entrepreneurs, educators, students, and industry leaders, have helped build a stronger ecosystem from the ground up.

There is also a growing focus on workforce development. Maryland is investing in preparing students, veterans, and professionals for careers in emerging technologies, ensuring the state can compete for the jobs and industries of the future.

Maryland’s approach is increasingly centered on collaboration between industry, academia, community organizations, and government. The goal is to foster innovation while ensuring consumer protection and creating economic opportunities for residents across the state.

Who are the key stakeholders you’ve had to bring together to move this work forward?

It all starts with the community. They are the driving force behind this movement. The individuals making phone calls, contacting their elected officials, attending town halls, and sharing their concerns are ultimately what move policy conversations forward.

Beyond grassroots advocates, we’ve brought together a broad coalition of stakeholders that includes entrepreneurs, developers, investors, students, veterans, educators, industry leaders, and policymakers. Organizations such as the Maryland Digital Asset Foundation, Maryland Blockchain Association, Stand With Crypto, the Digital State Network, and other ecosystem partners have played a critical role in fostering collaboration, advancing education, and creating meaningful dialogue around innovation and digital asset policy.

The most successful efforts happen when all of these groups are working together. Innovation does not happen in isolation. It requires builders, policymakers, educators, and community members all having a seat at the table and working toward a shared vision for Maryland’s future.

What advice would you give to other states looking to engage in this space?

Start with education and community.

The most successful ecosystems are built from the ground up, not the top down. Bring together entrepreneurs, developers, students, educators, investors, and policymakers early in the process. Create opportunities for people to learn from one another and have honest conversations about both the opportunities and challenges presented by emerging technologies.

Focus on people before policy. Strong communities create informed advocates, and informed advocates help shape better policy outcomes. Invest in workforce development, support local builders, and make sure innovators have a seat at the table when decisions are being made.

Most importantly, don’t try to do it alone. Partner with local organizations, universities, industry associations, and community leaders who are already doing the work. The states that will lead in digital assets and emerging technology are the ones that embrace collaboration and create environments where innovation can thrive.

If you could implement one pilot program tomorrow, what would it be?

The Baltimore Blockchain Center

If I could launch one pilot program tomorrow, it would be the creation of the Baltimore Blockchain Center, a workforce development and innovation hub designed to help Baltimore residents build the skills, businesses, and opportunities needed to thrive in the digital economy.

The center would bring together universities, community colleges, industry organizations, startups, employers, and community leaders to provide education, mentorship, and hands-on experience in blockchain, artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, and digital infrastructure.

Participants would not just study emerging technologies; they would use them to build real products and solutions that address challenges facing Baltimore businesses, nonprofits, neighborhoods, and government agencies.

What makes this initiative different is its focus on Ownership. Too often, communities are consumers of innovation rather than beneficiaries of it. The Baltimore Blockchain Center would empower residents to become builders, founders, and owners. Participants would have the opportunity to launch companies, develop intellectual property, create community-focused solutions, and generate long-term economic value for themselves and their neighborhoods.

About Gilberto Nazario:

Gilberto Nazario is a combat veteran, community builder, and technology advocate originally from Puerto Rico and now based in the DMV. From boots to blockchain, his career has spanned military service, government technology, and the forefront of digital asset innovation.

As Maryland Chapter President for Stand With Crypto and Founder & CEO of Web3DC, Gilberto works at the intersection of emerging technology, digital asset policy, workforce development, and entrepreneurship. He introduced and helped lead the Web3 and Digital Asset Track for DC Startup & Tech Week, helping build five years of programming that has brought together thousands of entrepreneurs, builders, investors, policymakers, and innovators from across the blockchain ecosystem.

Before entering the Web3 industry, Gilberto served with the 82nd Airborne Division, completing deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. He later held leadership roles within the Department of Defense, supporting mission-critical technology initiatives from the Pentagon to Army Recruiting Command. His journey from the battlefield to the boardroom, from the Pentagon to the frontlines of crypto, has given him a unique perspective on technology, security, and innovation.

Today, Gilberto works alongside students, veterans, startups, universities, and world-leading organizations to expand access to technology, develop talent pipelines, and create opportunities within the digital economy. He has partnered with several organizations, including the Digital Chamber, as a community partner. He also advises companies on business development, go-to-market strategy, and growth, bringing the integrity that defined his military and public service career to every engagement.

His mission is simple: help people build, connect, and thrive in the industries shaping the future.

TDC Supports CFTC’s Exercise of Emergency Authority to Ensure Market Stability

by Neil Humphrey

The CFTC’s Emergency Order is an important step toward preventing a single state from disrupting nationwide markets and echoes the disjointed regulation-by-enforcement approach the digital assets industry endured just a few short years ago.

Americans should be able to confidently access financial products and services, including prediction markets. We strongly support the CFTC’s work to oversee event-contract markets, protect consumers, and ensure the industry can compete and operate onshore.

For any inquires, please contact TDC at press@digitalchamber.org.

RE: Support for Senate Floor Consideration of the Clarity Act

by Neil Humphrey

On behalf of the Crypto Council for Innovation, Blockchain Association, and The Digital Chamber, we write to express our strong support for Senate floor consideration of the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act to establish a comprehensive framework for the regulation of digital assets in the United States. Read our full letter here.

  • The Digital Chamber CEO Cody Carbone
  • Crypto Council for Innovation CEO Ji Hun Kim
  • Blockchain Association CEO Summer Mersinger

For any inquires, please contact TDC at press@digitalchamber.org.