The Digital Chamber’s Statement and Brief of Amicus Curiae in the Samourai Wallet Case, United States v. Rodriguez & Hill

The Digital Chamber was disappointed that the Southern District of New York declined to accept our amicus curiae brief in the Samourai Wallet prosecution. Courts ordinarily welcome amici briefs, especially where highly technical questions intersect with novel applications of federal criminal law. While we hope that our brief will ultimately be allowed as a combined brief, delivered to the court, we are releasing it today so that stakeholders can evaluate our analysis and understand what is at risk. We encourage regulators, legislators, and fellow industry groups to read it closely and join us in calling for clarity, proportionality, and respect for constitutional due-process limits. 

Why this Matters

  1. FinCEN, not DOJ, sets the line between innovation and illicit finance. For more than a decade, FinCEN has said that only entities that accept and transmit customer funds – or exercise “total independent control” over them – are “money transmitters” subject to Bank Secrecy Act registration. Software developers who never touch user assets are not. That bright-line standard is the foundation on which legitimate wallet, payments, and privacy-enhancement tools have been built.
  2. DOJ is trying to redraw that line by indictment. The government now claims that merely facilitating peer-to-peer transactions can be criminal money transmission, even when the developer lacks custody of the funds. This about-face contradicts FinCEN’s rules, overwhelms due process notice requirements, and risks criminalizing software-as-speech.
  3. The chilling effect is real and immediate. If writing non-custodial code can trigger felony liability, the United States will continue to bleed talent, capital, and strategic advantage to friendlier jurisdictions – a trend already reflected in the 51% drop in the U.S. share of blockchain developers since 2015.

Substance of the Brief

Samourai’s code never controlled user Bitcoin and therefore cannot be a “money transmitting business” under 18 U.S.C. § 1960; criminal liability built on a brand-new interpretation of FinCEN’s regulations violates both the statute’s text and basic principles of fair notice.

The Path Forward

  • Courts should dismiss Count II and reaffirm that custody, not code, triggers money-transmitter status.
  • Congress should codify market structure through the CLARITY Act to eliminate regulatory whiplash and preserve the United States as a hub for responsible digital-asset innovation.
  • FinCEN should restate, publicly and unequivocally, that software alone is not money transmission, ensuring that developers operate under clear, consistent rules rather than shifting prosecutorial theories.

Commitment to Constructive Engagement

The Digital Chamber is a non-profit trade organization committed to promoting blockchain adoption. We envision a fair and inclusive digital and financial ecosystem where everyone has the opportunity to participate. Access to digital assets is not merely a technological advancement but a fundamental human right, crucial for economic and social empowerment. Through targeted education, advocacy, and strategic collaborations with government and industry stakeholders, we drive innovation and shape policies that create a favorable environment for the blockchain technology ecosystem.

For media inquiries, please contact press@digitalchamber.org.

Special SEC Crypto Task Force Response Workstreams

Last Updated: June 16, 2025

On February 21, SEC Commissioner Peirce published “There Must Be Some Way Out of Here,” a request for public input to assist the Crypto Task Force as they consider policy initiatives across a wide range of digital asset issues that echo most, if not all, of our Token Alliance Leadership Committee 2025 SEC Policy Priorities. The request sets out 48 detailed questions. TDC has broke out our efforts around this project into 13 different workstreams. We launched the first seven of these workstreams at the beginning of April and are now starting to provide feedback to the SEC on a rolling basis as we complete each of these workstream’s set of responses. See Commissioner Peirce’s questions and our responses below.

Question 3

Certain crypto assets are used in a variety of functions inherent to the operation of a blockchain network, such as mining or staking as part of a consensus mechanism or securing the network, validating transactions or other related activities on the network, and paying transaction or other fees on the network. These technology functions may be conducted directly or indirectly, such as through third-party service providers. What types of technology functions are inherent to the operation of a blockchain network? Should the Commission address the status of technology functions under the federal securities laws and, if so, what issues should be addressed? TDC response here.

Questions 10-14

TDC members had differing views on whether the SEC should pursue a token safe harbor along the lines of the one proposed by Commissioner Hester Peirce in 2019 while Congress is actively considering market structure legislation that would address the same problem

While passage of market structure legislation is not guaranteed, it is a clear priority for the Trump Administration and the leadership of the Senate Agriculture, Senate Banking, House Financial Services, and House Agriculture committees.  If the SEC adopts a safe harbor that looks drastically different legislation passed by Congress, the industry may be left in the unenviable position of dealing with a series of shifting regulatory frameworks within the next four years.

As we know, Congress has not yet passed legislation and the SEC is not bound to any bill text but we urge the SEC’s staff to coordinate and consult with relevant committee staff working on legislation around any potential safe harbor they might propose. 

If the SEC goes forward with a safe harbor, the SEC should clarify that crypto assets sold pursuant to an investment contract under the safe harbor are not the security itself, and that secondary trading of the crypto assets sold pursuant to the safe harbor do not constitute investment contract transactions under the securities laws. Also, the Commission should avoid using decentralization as the threshold for determining whether a crypto asset is sold pursuant to a securities transaction. Imposing regulatory definitions of decentralization may distort otherwise preferable, organic efforts toward decentralization and optimization of security and safety of protocols.

TDC response here.

Questions 21-22 

Broker-dealers should be permitted to custody both crypto asset security and non-security assets, both on a proprietary basis and for third parties. In addition:

  • We ask that the SEC work with Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC) to confirm that crypto asset securities are securities for Securities Investor Protection Act (SIPA) purposes.
  • We ask the SEC to take a technology-neutral, principles-based approach to broker-dealer custody of crypto assets that requires the broker-dealer to maintain exclusive control of such assets,
  • We propose a path for broker-dealers to establish possession or control of crypto asset securities and non-security assets that will provide flexibility as new technologies develop and request amendments to Rule 15c3-3 to codify these changes,
  • We ask that the SEC make clear that a Section 3(a)(6) Bank can custody not just crypto asset securities but all uncertificated securities, and

TDC response here.

Questions 27-29 

As a critical first step, the SEC must take immediate action to confirm the scope of the existing custody rules with respect to crypto assets and revoke the Safeguarding Proposed Rules from March 2023 since Many crypto assets, including BTC, ETH, stablecoins and many other crypto assets, are not “securities” or “client funds” and do not fall under the existing custody rule.  In addition;

  • We urge the SEC to expand the definition of “qualified custodian” to expressly include state-chartered trust companies and other types of entities not expressly enumerated that meet substantially similar standards;
  • We propose a non-exclusive “safe harbor” to permit RIAs to self-custody crypto asset securities based on principles-based concepts such as protection of client crypto asset securities, segregation of client and proprietary assets, auditability, and disclosure of potential material risks and conflicts; and
  • We recommend that the SEC adopt a principle-based approach to allow RIAs to engage in trading, voting, staking and other activities while safeguarding assets.

TDC Response here.

Questions 35-39

  1. If the listing exchange does not have an SSA with a regulated market and no regulated market for the crypto asset underlying an ETP exists, could the listing exchange address concerns regarding fraud and manipulation based on the size and liquidity of the underlying spot market? What would be an appropriate measure of size and liquidity that would address these concerns? Are there more appropriate ways to address concerns regarding fraud and manipulation?
  2. How should the Commission consider market capitalization, unique number of wallets, trading volume, the number of spot markets, geographic distribution of spot markets, size and frequency of price divergences, or speed of price convergence/arbitrage?
  3. How should the Commission consider crypto asset-based ETPs that are investing in assets that are already referenced in crypto asset-based exchange-traded funds registered as investment companies under the Investment Company Act?
  4. What factors should the Commission consider with respect to an SSA between an
    exchange listing an ETP on a crypto asset and a spot crypto market?
  5. How should the Commission weigh the reliability, frequency, and dissemination of pricing information on the crypto assets underlying the ETP in its consideration?

TDC response here.

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

The Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act (BRCA) Joint Statement

Last Updated: June 5, 2025

We are united in our commitment to protecting the software developers building our financial future. Today, DeFi Education Fund, Coin Center, Solana Policy Institute, The Digital Chamber, Blockchain Association, Crypto Council for Innovation, and Bitcoin Policy Institute speak to Congress with one voice: include the bipartisan Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act (BRCA) in market structure legislation. 

As much-needed digital asset regulation develops in the United States, it is critically important to remember that developers creating peer-to-peer, non-custodial software and the infrastructure providers who enable decentralized networks have little in common with traditional financial institutions and should not be treated as such. The BRCA acknowledges this reality and ensures that when software developers or blockchain service providers do not control or custody customer funds, they are not inappropriately required to register as “money transmitting businesses” or liable for failing to do so. 

Thank you to Rep. Tom Emmer, Rep. Ritchie Torres, and their staff for their leadership on this issue. We strongly encourage the House of Representatives to include the BRCA in the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act of 2025, and ensure that innovators across America can safely build financial infrastructure here – at home. 

The Corporate Alternative Minimum Tax (CAMT) The Digital Chamber & Digital Power Network’s Opposition

Last Updated: June 4, 2025

What is CAMT?

The Corporate Alternative Minimum Tax (CAMT), created by the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, sets a 15% minimum tax for large corporations that earn more than $1 billion per year on average. Instead of relying on the traditional tax system, which allows companies to lower their taxable income through deductions and credits, the CAMT is based on the income they report to investors in their financial statements. This new system was designed to ensure that highly profitable companies can’t reduce their tax bills to near-zero using accounting strategies, and that they contribute a baseline amount in federal taxes each year.

How Did CAMT Come to Include Unrealized Crypto Gains?

In December 2023, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) updated its rules to require companies to report the fair market value of digital assets on their financial statements.

This shift means that unrealized gains and losses must now be reflected in a company’s reported income, even if those assets haven’t been sold. Because CAMT calculations are tied to this financial statement income, these paper gains can now trigger real tax obligations. As a result, companies with significant crypto holdings may find themselves liable for taxes on value they have not yet realized in cash, raising concerns about liquidity, fairness, and unintended consequences for digital asset innovation.

Who is Affected?

The intersection of CAMT and the new accounting standards primarily impacts large corporations with significant digital asset holdings. These companies may face substantial tax bills based on paper gains, without having liquidated the assets to generate cash. This scenario raises concerns about liquidity and financial planning, especially in volatile markets.

Legislative Response

Senators Lummis (R-WY) and Moreno (R-OH) have called on the Treasury to issue guidance that excludes unrealized crypto gains from CAMT calculations. They argue that taxing unrealized gains is inconsistent with traditional tax principles and could hinder innovation in the digital asset space. The senators suggest that the Treasury has the authority to adjust CAMT regulations to prevent unintended consequences and maintain a fair tax environment for U.S. companies.

Conclusion

The application of CAMT to unrealized cryptocurrency gains has sparked debate over tax fairness and economic competitiveness. As the Treasury considers potential adjustments, stakeholders await clarity on how digital assets will be treated under the evolving tax landscape.

The Digital Chamber and Digital Power Network oppose CAMT and urge for its swift repeal.

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

CFPB Withdraws Flawed Rule Impacting Self-Hosted Wallets and Blockchain Gaming

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau recently withdrew its interpretive rule on the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and its related Regulation E that would have brought serious implications to self-hosted wallets and blockchain gaming platforms. 

TDC’s Gaming Workstream, in effort with our partners at the Blockchain Game Alliance, submitted comments to the CFPB in March outlining how the rule, which miscategorized self-hosted wallets as “financial accounts” operated by “financial institutions” was technically incorrect and would place onerous and undue regulatory burdens on self-hosted wallet providers and gaming platforms. If this miscategorization had been implemented, self-hosted wallet providers and blockchain gaming platforms would have been subject to significant KYC requirements and counterparty transaction data collection and reporting practices. 

Self-hosted wallets don’t collect counterparty information, and blockchain gaming platforms — which standardize a “bring your own wallet” approach — do not collect or have access to this data either. In practice, the rule misunderstood how this setup and the technology behind self-custody function and would have applied rules meant specifically for financial intermediaries to non-intermediated technology providers, giving wallet providers and gaming platforms no way to comply. We are pleased to see the CFPB now recognizes this key distinction. 

See the announcement here.

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

TDC Submits Letter of Opposition to IL SB1797 – The Digital Assets Consumer Protection Act (DACPA)

May 9, 2025  

On, May 9, The Digital Chamber formally submitted a letter of opposition to SB 1797, the “Digital Assets Consumer Protection Act (DACPA)”, currently under consideration in Illinois. While we appreciate the intent to provide regulatory clarity and consumer protections, the bill as written would severely hinder innovation, economic growth, and the long-term competitiveness of the blockchain and digital asset industry in the state.

The Chamber’s letter urges lawmakers to reconsider the proposal’s broad and restrictive provisions, which risk pushing cutting-edge businesses and technology development out of Illinois. As the world’s first and largest blockchain trade association, we remain committed to working collaboratively with policymakers to craft forward-thinking legislation that supports responsible innovation and safeguards consumer interests. We hope that the Illinois legislature will consider the unintended externalities of this legislation and modify it for the benefit of Illinoisans. 

Read the full letter here.

About The Digital Chamber

The Digital Chamber is the world’s leading trade association representing blockchain and digital asset businesses. Founded in 2014, the organization has been instrumental in shaping policy, educating lawmakers, and driving regulatory clarity to support the responsible growth of the digital asset industry. For more information, visit www.digitalchamber.org.

Securing America’s Infrastructure: Blockchain Solutions for Cyber and Physical Threats

May 7, 2025  

By: Jean-Philippe Beaudet 

Advanced Persistent Threats (APTs) are covert cyber-attacks where an attacker gains access to a computer network and remains undetected for an extended period of time, either lying in wait to attack at an opportune time in the future or manipulating the network undetected in the background for months or years. 

According to the Joint Cybersecurity Advisory – an international consortium of intelligence and security organizations – the past few years have seen significant nation-state-backed cyber-attacks against the United States:  

  • Chinese-affiliated Volt Typhoon, “has compromised the IT environments of multiple critical infrastructure organizations – primarily in Communications, Energy, Transportation Systems, and Water and Wastewater Systems (WWS) sectors.”1 
  • “Russian state-sponsored APTs have used sophisticated cyber capabilities to target a variety of U.S. and international critical infrastructure organizations, including those in the Defense Industrial Base as well as the Healthcare and Public Health, Energy, Telecommunications, and Government Facilities Sectors.”2 
  • “[Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps]-affiliated APTs are actively targeting programmable logic controllers (PLCs). These PLCs are commonly used in the WWS Sector and other industries including, but not limited to, energy, food and beverage manufacturing, and healthcare.”3 

Securing critical physical infrastructure and the software it utilizes is a central concern for U.S. national security professionals because these systems underpin every critical service we rely upon for our livelihood and survival. Blockchain technology offers innovative solutions to enhance security, ensure operational integrity, and mitigate risks to these vital assets.  

Immutable Audit Trails for Infrastructure Monitoring  

Blockchain’s decentralized and immutable ledger provides a secure solution for monitoring physical infrastructure. Every operation, system update, and status change can be permanently recorded on the blockchain, allowing stakeholders to audit infrastructure activity in real-time. This transparency ensures that tampering or malicious attempts to compromise critical systems—whether through physical effects or non-kinetic cyber-intrusions—are instantly detectable. Unauthorized changes or anomalies can trigger immediate alerts, empowering operators to react swiftly to mitigate damage and prevent wider-scale disruptions.  

Securing Operational Technology with Decentralized Control  

Operational Technology (OT) systems, such as those controlling power grids, water treatment facilities, and transportation networks, are critical to our national infrastructure. Centralized OT systems are vulnerable single points of failure, where cyber-attacks or insider threats at one entry point could compromise entire networks. Distributing these nodes through a blockchain network significantly reduces the risk of system compromise. This decentralization adds resilience by making it exceedingly difficult for adversaries to launch successful attacks on large-scale infrastructure.  

Strengthening Supply Chain Integrity  

The physical components of critical infrastructure – from transformers in power grids to sensors in water treatment plants – often pass through complex global supply chains before reaching their destination. Blockchain technology paired with Internet of Things (IoT) monitoring provides end-to-end visibility of each component’s journey, ensuring that only verified, authenticated, and untampered-with materials are used in infrastructure systems. By securely recording every transaction and transfer on an immutable ledger, blockchain greatly diminishes the risk of counterfeit or compromised parts being introduced into critical infrastructure, reducing the ability of adversaries to exploit systemic vulnerabilities.  

Implementation of blockchains in service of protecting our critical infrastructure is perhaps one of the most important and efficacious uses cases to date for the technology and we strongly support research, investment, and implementation of them to safeguard U.S. national security.  

The Digital Chamber will continue to collaborate with policymakers, researchers, and industry leaders to advance the integration of blockchain into our nation’s physical infrastructure, protecting the services and resources our citizens depend on. 

About The Digital Chamber

The Digital Chamber is the world’s leading trade association representing blockchain and digital asset businesses. Founded in 2014, the organization has been instrumental in shaping policy, educating lawmakers, and driving regulatory clarity to support the responsible growth of the digital asset industry. For more information, visit www.digitalchamber.org.

The Stablecoin Pivot & U.S. Dollar Dominance in the Digital Era 

It goes without saying that we are at a pivotal moment for the global payments ecosystem. Emerging technologies presenting seamless, real-time, and transparent digital movement of payments across borders, coupled with new and expanding financial architectures that are increasingly being folded into broader strategic geopolitical shifts and realignment policies, amid heightened competition (with both friendly and adversarial countries) that could jeopardize the U.S. dollar’s pre-eminent global position as the world’s reserve currency are all converging, simultaneously. Capturing the opportunities presented by this convergence are immense; so too are the potential economic and monetary headwinds from failing to prioritize and instill U.S. leadership in the digital payments space race. While the U.S. has been slow to get out of the gate on payment stablecoin policy in comparison to other jurisdictions, the recent advancements of both the STABLE Act and GENIUS Act provide Congress with a unique opportunity to bolster U.S. competitiveness and solidify the dollar’s role in the digital era.  

The bipartisan votes to move both the GENIUS Act and STABLE Act through the Senate Banking Committee and the House Financial Services Committee, respectively, represent a seminal moment for payment stablecoin policy in the U.S. For the first time ever, both committees successfully moved payment stablecoin legislation that provides for a robust federal framework responsive to the next evolution of payments. As committee staff continue to work tirelessly to reconcile both pieces of legislation – legislation that The Digital Chamber has been actively engaged in – it is worth noting that the objectives of both legislative texts are not to simply cater to the demands of industry, but rather to redefine, reimagine, and reinforce U.S. competitiveness and the global role of the U.S. dollar in the digital era. As Rep. Bryan Steil (R-WI) aptly put it: “This legislation is a foundational step towards securing the future of financial payments in the United States and solidifying the dollar’s continued dominance as a world reserve currency.” 

A ‘foundational step’ that opens the door to a wide variety of opportunities.  

Take, for instance, the opportunity to move the legislative conversation away from merely speaking about past incidents and hypothetical situations to firmly establishing a federal framework that seeks to address the challenges raised by those past incidents and hypothetical situations. Policymakers and regulators have raised, and continue to raise, concerns about the various risks associated with payment stablecoins, including just how ‘stable’ stablecoins really are. Reports from various jurisdictions and multilateral forums further amplify these concerns – which are justifiably raised, given the demise of past stablecoin issuers and the widespread wealth destruction resulting from the associated fallout. But it is disingenuous to the broader policy debate to raise these concerns without also discussing the regulatory regimes already in place – whether at the State level, in international jurisdictions, or through emerging policy frameworks, such as the STABLE Act or the GENIUS Act. Any serious analysis of the risks and challenges stablecoins may pose must weigh them against these existing and developing standards. Establishing a federal framework that can responsibly address such risks and hypotheticals, while establishing robust protections for users, could put an end to merely talking about one side of the equation. 

Furthermore, we cannot ignore the opportunity to create alternative avenues to purchase U.S. debt. As the U.S. Treasury recently highlighted in its October 2024 report to the Treasury Borrowing Advisory Committee, or TBAC, more than $120 billion worth of collateral backing stablecoins currently in circulation are directly invested in U.S. Treasuries (approximately 2.5% of U.S. Treasury bills (T-bills)). Treasury acknowledged in the report that the structural demand for U.S. Treasuries “may increase as the digital asset market cap grows, both as a hedge against downside price volatility and as an ‘on-chain’ safe-haven asset.” Treasury also stated that the continued growth “in stablecoins, assuming the current trend in stablecoin collateral choices continues (or is forced by a regulator), will create structural demand for short-dated U.S. Treasuries − Recommended issuance should on the margin lean to a higher proportion of T-bills.”  

Both legislative texts would require permitted payment stablecoin issuers to hold reserves that would include U.S. Treasuries. A recent report from Standard Chartered, as described in CoinDesk, found that a federal framework “would further legitimize the stablecoin industry” with the bank also estimating that total stablecoin supply could rise from $230 billion today to $2 trillion by year-end 2028. The bank also estimated that the increase in stablecoin issuance would require the additional buying of $1.6 trillion of Treasury bills over the next four years which “would be enough to absorb all the fresh T-bill issuance planned for the rest of Trump’s second term.” Overall, stablecoin issuers may become the second-largest buyers of T-bills after money-market funds, which currently hold around $2.4 trillion in T-bills. An alternative buyer of T-bills is sorely needed when you consider foreign central bank holdings of U.S. Treasuries continue to decline, as The Digital Chamber recently noted. 

In addition to opening up alternative avenues to purchase U.S. debt, the development of a federal framework and the proliferation of US dollar-pegged payment stablecoins globally also presents alternative avenues to access and utilize U.S. dollars, especially in more marginalized communities or developing economies. In its report, Stablecoins: The Emerging Market Story, Castle Island Ventures not only found that the use cases for stablecoins were broadening beyond their primary use case in facilitating crypto transactions, but also that stablecoin activity was decoupling from broader crypto market cycles proving that stablecoin adoption “has moved beyond merely serving crypto users and trading use cases.” The study also found that of the non-trading use cases, currency conversion (to dollars) is the most frequently reported activity, followed by paying for goods, cross-border payments, and paying or receiving a salary. “Overall, 47 percent of respondents indicated that one of their major goals was saving money in dollars, 43 percent mentioned better currency conversion rates, and 39 percent said earning a yield. The findings are clear: non-crypto uses account for a meaningful share of stablecoin usage modes in the countries surveyed.” 

 These findings were also echoed in a recent blog post sponsored by the Payments Forum of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta. Chris Colson writes: 

“While it’s hard to predict whether or not stablecoins will become a universal payment method, the foundation is forming. Once seen as a hedge against crypto volatility, stablecoins are establishing themselves as a new, innovative payment type. These digital currencies are influencing the future of payments such as purchasing a coffee with a gift card purchased with stablecoins or buying a ticket for a movie at a discount.  

One thing is certain: the future of payments looks a lot more stable.” 

By opening up alternative avenues to purchase U.S. debt and broadening access to U.S. dollar-linked instruments, dollar dominance has taken hold in the payment stablecoin market with approximately 99 percent of the market referencing the U.S. dollar. As U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent recently remarked, “As President Trump has directed, we are going to keep the U.S. the dominant reserve currency in the world, and we will use stablecoins to do that.” Other countries – both allies and adversaries – are taking notice, however, which again highlights the need for the U.S. to get engaged through enacting a federal payment stablecoin regime.  

Take, for instance, recent discussions in Europe where officials at the European Central Bank (ECB) are searching for answers to address the growing USD-referenced stablecoin market. Ulrich Bindeil, ECB Director General, Market Infrastructure & Payments, raised concerns about the lack of adoption of euro stablecoins during a European Parliament Economic and Monetary Affairs meeting, before recommending a review of the business case and the role of stablecoins for the international role of the euro, including potential adjustments to the EU’s regulatory framework and central bank rules. Similar concerns were raised by Piero Cipollone, Member of the Executive Board of the ECB, where he noted that recent measures taken by the Trump Administration to promote crypto-assets and US dollar-backed stablecoins “raise concerns for Europe’s financial stability and strategic autonomy.” He added: “They could potentially result not just in further losses of fees and data, but also in euro deposits being moved to the United States and in a further strengthening of the role of the dollar in cross-border payments. At the same time, private businesses are increasingly open to accepting stablecoins for customer payments, which could have far-reaching implications for monetary sovereignty.” 

Or, take recent concerns expressed by a Chinese economic think tank about the proliferation of US dollar stablecoins globally. “Once the US dollar stablecoin links the international credit of the US dollar with the application scenarios of the virtual world more closely, it may greatly consolidate the hegemony of the US dollar,” the article states.  

The STABLE Act and GENIUS Act present the opportunity for the U.S. to leap ahead of the competition and solidify the integrity and role of the US dollar in the digital era. The only question is, is the U.S. willing to lead, or cede? 

The Digital Chamber Backs DOJ’s Restraint on Digital Assets Prosecutions

The Digital Chamber Backs DOJ’s Restraint on Prosecuting Digital Assets Entrepreneurs and Innovators

Washington, D.C., April 14, 2025 – The Digital Chamber wholeheartedly supports the recent decision by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to refrain from prosecuting entrepreneurs and innovators in the digital assets sector for inadvertent lapses in complying with complex and evolving rules.  Reigning in prosecutors from misusing strict liability standards for failure to register as a money services business marks a significant step forward in fostering a fair and just regulatory environment for the burgeoning digital assets industry. 

The DOJ’s decision aligns closely with the core principles of 18 U.S.C. § 1960. This statute is designed to combat money laundering and other illegal activities by dismantling operations that enable such crimes. Its primary purpose is to equip law enforcement with the tools to target those who intentionally exploit the financial system for illicit gain. However, it was never meant to penalize individuals or entities that are committed to compliance, even in the face of complex and sometimes unclear regulations. 

We are particularly encouraged by the clear directive articulated by Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche emphasizing that the Department’s investigative and prosecutorial focus within the digital asset space will be squarely aimed at “prosecuting individuals who victimize digital asset investors, or those who use digital assets in furtherance of criminal offenses such as terrorism, narcotics and human trafficking, organized crime, hacking, and cartel and gang financing.” This strategic prioritization underscores a commitment to protecting consumers and national security, aligning law enforcement resources with the most significant threats. 

The Deputy Attorney General’s further guidance that prosecutors should generally refrain from criminalizing regulatory violations, including but not limited to unlicensed money transmitting under 18 U.S.C. § 1960(b)(I)(A) and (B), Bank Secrecy Act violations, unregistered securities or broker-dealer offerings, and other registration infractions under the Commodity Exchange Act, absent clear evidence of the defendant’s knowing and willful violation of such requirements, is appropriate and consistent with the original legislative intent. This exercise of prosecutorial discretion acknowledges the genuine challenges faced by innovators and entrepreneurs navigating a rapidly evolving technological and regulatory landscape. It recognizes that unintentional non-compliance, born from a lack of clarity or genuine misunderstanding of complex rules, should not be equated with deliberate criminal conduct. 

The Digital Chamber also welcomes the Justice Department’s active participation in President Trump’s Working Group on Digital Asset Markets, established by Executive Order 14178. The designation of senior legal experts to this vital body underscores the DOJ’s commitment to engaging proactively in the development of a clear and effective regulatory framework for digital assets. This collaboration between policymakers, regulators, and industry stakeholders will be crucial for fostering a balanced and sustainable ecosystem. 

The Digital Chamber also applauds Acting Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) Chairman Caroline Pham’s statement lauding the DOJ’s policy of ending the practice of regulation by prosecution that has targeted the digital asset industry in recent years and directing CFTC staff to comply with the President’s executive orders and Administration policy, consistent with DOJ’s digital assets enforcement priorities and charging considerations. As Acting Chairman Pham noted in her statement, “[F]or far too long, lawfare from multiple federal agencies against innovators in the digital asset space has created unfairness and uncertainty that has undermined trust in the regulatory process and impeded American competitiveness.” 

The Digital Chamber firmly believes that clarity, education, and open dialogue are essential for the responsible growth of the digital asset industry. The DOJ’s recent decision reflects these principles and provides a crucial foundation for building a regulatory environment that encourages innovation while safeguarding the integrity of the financial system. We commend the Department for its thoughtful approach and look forward to continued collaboration to ensure the United States remains a leader in the digital asset revolution. 

____________________________________________________________________________________ 

Kristopher Klaich 
Director of Policy, The Digital Chamber 

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

TDC Market Structure Principles

The Digital Chamber’s Core Market Structure Principles

Updated with Member Feedback [March 2025]

Below are The Digital Chamber (TDC)’s core market structure principles—the foundational tenets that should guide digital asset legislation. While legislative text will be broader in scope, these principles reflect the consensus of our membership, the largest and most diverse in the United States, spanning key industry stakeholders.

  1. Provide robust consumer protections, including transparent and timely disclosures and pathways for recourse.
  2. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) should be recognized as the primary regulator for digital asset markets (outside capital raising activities or representing equity or debt interests traditionally recognized as securities).
  3. Fungible digital assets should be presumed commodities by default unless they meet a specific, narrowly defined set of criteria establishing them as securities or other. 
  4. Rulemaking for the spot market for digital asset commodities should fall to the CFTC. Regulatory frameworks for digital asset intermediaries should leverage existing registration categories rather than create new, duplicative, or burdensome regimes.
  5. For digital assets that are securities, the SEC shall use its exemptive authority to implement exemptive relief under: 
    • Section 28 of the Securities Act of 1933,  
    • Section 36 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934,  
    • Section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, and  
    • Section 206A of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940– to harmonize its rules for the protection of investors and facilitation of capital formation.  

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