I'm honored to be leading @SolanaInstitute as we work to educate policymakers on the incredible potential of decentralized networks like Solana. It's a pivotal moment for our industry, and we need clear rules to unleash the innovators building the digital economy of the future.

Incumbents are always going to fear the future. The @CFTC stands ready to address changing landscapes and ensure America remains the crypto capital of the world. We will continue to work diligently to onshore innovation and bring novel derivatives under the CFTC’s gold standard regulatory framework so that these markets can thrive here at home.

Gary Gensler deliberately sought an intergalactic reach for the CFTC through Dodd Frank. Now he’s saying that didn’t mean a few things he doesn’t like. The law is the law. Exchange-traded event contracts, on all things, are within the agency’s jurisdiction.cnb.cx/4vClc17

Peirce (almost) out: sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-st…

incredibly obvious to support this and happy to sign this letter. The BRCA explained: money transmission law assumes you hold customer funds. it requires things only a custodian can do: freeze assets, file reports, return money. applied to a developer who ships non-custodial code, it's an impossible standard backed by criminal penalties. the BRCA fixes the mismatch. control funds = regulated intermediary, full stop. write software = developer. nothing about AML changes for anyone who actually custodies money. it survived the house and senate banking markup. the senate should pass it intact.

Excited to see 60 CEOs and founders deliver this unified message to Senate leadership: the Clarity Act must be passed with developer protections and the BRCA intact. Clear regulatory certainty for developers is essential to drive innovation and keep America competitive.

1inch joined 60 CEOs and founders urging the Senate to pass the Clarity Act with developer protections intact. A developer who does not control user funds is not a money transmitter. That line matters.

I'm proud that @nathanmccauley and @Anchorage Digital have joined the industry in urging the Senate to keep BRCA in the CLARITY Act. Builders deserve certainty, and America deserves to keep this innovation at home.

1/ The Clarity Act has a real shot at passing the Senate. Getting it right means protecting the developers who build public blockchains. Getting it wrong risks pushing them – and the future of this technology – offshore. 🧵

Today, we are proud to join 60 co-signatories in sending a joint letter urging the Senate to pass the Clarity Act with robust developer protections, reflecting the industry's unified view that developer protections are essential to any workable piece of crypto market structure legislation.  read full letter here: t.ly/iXpDU

I started my career in politics because I believed, in the words of the late great Senator Paul Wellstone, that "politics is about the improvement of people's lives." I chose to build in DeFi because I believed it enabled us to build better systems -- shared systems that give all participants a greater stake in the new economy. And did so as a fully doxxed American — at a moment in this country when I knew that no matter how hard I tried to do it right, I risked ending up in jail or being sued by my own government just for building technology. That is why today, I joined 60 CEOs and founders in signing a letter to Senate leaders expressing that developer protections are essential to any workable crypto market structure bill. On behalf of everyone at @DromosLabs, @VelodromeFi, and @AerodromeFi, we urge the Senate to pass the Clarity Act with robust developer protections. t.ly/iXpDU

The Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act clarifies the issue in law today that most directly affects (and chills) US developers’ day-to-day decision making.   The Senate must follow the Banking Committee’s lead in passing, on a bipartisan basis, the Clarity Act with the BRCA intact!

Our statement on the UK government’s demand that all content on all devices sold or used in the country be scanned, on the presumption of nudity, using a dystopian combination of age verification and content scanning. This proposal will not safeguard children. It endangers us all. signal.org/blog/pdfs/2026-06…

Stripping the BRCA from Clarity would not make the bill tougher on industry. It would not address ethics concerns. All it would achieve is hurting open source developers. coincenter.org/the-brca-is-r…

Policymakers that support developers deserve developers' support! Thank you @glzavatone for creating the first PAC focused on doing that—and that alone. I'm looking forward to helping build the movement.

The CFTC’s action related to perps puts us at a unique inflection point in American regulatory history. Will regulators permit transparent, auditable code to substitute for intermediated human activity? With the right safeguards, the former is a far superior system.

In my first public remarks as @CFTC Chairman, I made clear that the agency would use the tools at its disposal to onshore crypto asset perpetuals. Today, the @CFTC delivered on that commitment. This morning, the @CFTC took historic action to permit the listing of a true bitcoin perpetual contract by a CFTC-registered exchange, charting a path for one of the most liquid segments of the crypto asset markets to exist within the US regulatory framework.

If people want to understand what synthetics mean to me in this context, see the staff statement on tokenization, which distinguishes tokenized versions of issuer-sponsored stocks and of stocks that SEC-registered firms hold for their customers from synthetic instruments that provide exposure to stocks. sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-st…

Debate continues around the Clarity Act. But the conversation should be grounded in what the bill says rather than exaggerations of what people assume is in there without having read it. The bill is designed to bring digital asset activity into a clearer regulatory framework. Clarity creates new obligations, supervisory hooks, and agency rulemakings while preserving the core authorities DOJ and federal agencies already use to pursue money laundering, sanctions evasion, fraud, and scams. The bill does not make it easier for criminals to use crypto to launder money. Framing Clarity as “deregulation” is puzzling, to say the least. The bill includes hundreds of pages of new obligations, registration requirements, disclosures, rulemakings, and compliance undertakings that do not exist today. The same is true for arguments that the bill lets banks put customer assets at risk. What the bill does is allow regulated financial institutions to responsibly innovate, including by using blockchain technology to perform functions they may otherwise already perform through other means, subject to applicable supervision and regulatory requirements. Banks are not going to be secretly converting customer deposits/assets into crypto because of this bill. On illicit finance specifically, check out Title II and Title III of Clarity. Those sections cover new obligations relating to illicit finance, protocols, and front ends. And if you’re concerned that the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act (BRCA) or other developer protections in Clarity create a money laundering loophole, please point us to the language that does so. The BRCA aligns the scope of money transmission with the longstanding interpretation of the federal agency that administers the Bank Secrecy Act. It does not legalize money laundering, financing of terrorism, evading sanctions, or knowingly facilitating the movement of dirty money. Clarity does not strip away the rules that apply to other types of investments. In fact, Clarity reflects a basic parity principle that a tokenized security is still a security. Tokenizing something does not magically remove it from the applicable regulations. The claim that Clarity makes it far more difficult for regulators to crack down on fraud and scams is also impossible to reconcile with the text of the bill. Take Amendment 126, for example, adopted during the Banking markup on a bipartisan basis. That makes clear that unless explicitly addressed by Clarity, existing authorities for fraud, scams, deceptive practices, and similar misconduct remain fully intact and available to regulators. If someone commits fraud, this bill does not give them a free pass. No part of Clarity authorizes taxpayer bailouts for crypto. The bill includes clarifications about issues like bankruptcy and customer property, but that is not the same thing as putting taxpayers on the hook for crypto bailouts. There are fair debates around ethics provisions. Those provisions were not included in the Banking markup because of jurisdictional issues, but many remain at the table for ongoing negotiations around ethics language in any final bill. And yes, crypto participates in politics. So do banks, unions, lawyers, energy companies, consumer groups, tech companies, and every other organized interest in America. Political advocacy does not prove that the underlying policy is wrong. It is also insulting to suggest that a lawmaker's support for crypto legislation can only be explained by ignorance or corruption. Members and staff have spent years hearing from the industry, its critics, academics, regulators, and many others. Pretending support can only come from bad faith ignores the years of education and policy work that have gone into this debate. The industry has not been hiding Clarity. We have been talking about this bill for months. Organizations like @BlockchainAssn, @crypto_council, @DigitalChamber, @fund_defi, @standwithcrypto, and so many others have been speaking publicly about the bill and urging people to contact their representatives to explain why regulatory clarity and other specific parts of the text matter. This debate has been happening in public. And it will continue.