Wallet Clarity in U.S. Market Structure: Non-Custodial Protections and Developer Risk

• My 'briefing notes' summarize the content of podcast episodes; they do not reflect my own views.
• They contain (1) a summary of podcast content, (2) potential information gaps, and (3) some speculative views on wider Bitcoin implications.
• Pay attention to broadcast dates (I often summarize older episodes)
• Some episodes I summarize may be sponsored: don't trust, verify, if the information you are looking for is to be used for decision-making.

Summary

The September 29, 2025 episode of Bitcoin Policy Hour features Kyle Olney explaining how the Senate-led “Clarity Act” market-structure bill would set U.S. rules for digital-asset markets. The bill pairs potential CFTC spot-market authority with statutory definitions that decide whether non-custodial wallets and developers are treated as money transmitters. Olney argues that precise “unilateral and independent control” language is pivotal to protect self-custody and open-source development.

Take-Home Messages

1. Clarity Act: The Senate’s “Clarity Act” is a market-structure bill that could grant CFTC spot authority and codify wallet/developer treatment.
2. Statutory Line-Drawing: A clear “unilateral and independent control” test separates non-custodial tools from money transmitters.
3. Conditioned Oversight: CFTC spot-market authority only benefits markets if wallet and developer protections remain intact.
4. Chilling Effects: Section 1960 and BSA theories have already deterred open-source work, raising the stakes of precise language.
5. Advocacy Window: Phone calls to pivotal Senate offices are the highest-leverage tactic during late-stage negotiations.

Overview

Kyle Olney situates the debate inside the Senate’s “Clarity Act,” a market-structure package that would define the legal status of non-custodial wallets and developers while considering new CFTC authority over spot markets. The bill’s core hinge is whether Congress codifies a bright-line “unilateral and independent control” test to keep neutral tools outside money-transmission rules. In this framing, statutory precision determines whether self-custody remains permissionless or drifts into de facto custodial regulation.

He cautions that ambiguous drafting invites prosecutors to stretch Section 1960 and Bank Secrecy Act theories toward code publishers. Olney points to recent cases as evidence that guidance alone is unstable across administrations. He concludes that only statute can durably resolve the boundary between infrastructure and regulated intermediation.

Market-structure proposals to expand CFTC authority appear workable, he says, only if wallet protections survive the conference process. Olney notes the agency’s derivatives remit and questions how far spot oversight should reach without sweeping in non-custodial activity. He contends that pairing narrow market integrity tools with explicit wallet carve-outs preserves user autonomy.

The timeline is tight, and negotiations are fluid. Olney prioritizes constituent phone calls over emails, citing staff tally practices and vote-count dynamics. He warns that late-stage trades could swap wallet protections for other priorities unless senators hear targeted, informed requests.

Stakeholder Perspectives

1. Developers: Seek bright-line exclusions so publishing or maintaining non-custodial code does not trigger money-transmission liability.
2. Non-Custodial Wallet Providers: Want statutory certainty that tools lacking unilateral control are outside BSA registration and monitoring duties.
3. Regulators (CFTC/FinCEN/DOJ): Need enforceable delineations that target intermediaries without criminalizing neutral infrastructure.
4. Institutional Investors: Prefer market integrity gains that do not impair self-custody, developer ecosystems, or liquidity formation.
5. Legislators and Staff: Require concise, defensible text that can survive amendments, enforcement shifts, and judicial review.

Implications and Future Outlook

Clear non-custodial definitions would lower legal risk, stabilize open-source maintenance, and keep self-custody viable for mainstream users. Absent those lines, liability migrates to toolmakers, venture capital tilts toward custodial intermediaries, and innovation shifts jurisdictions. The resulting ecosystem would be more closed, more expensive, and less resilient.

Conditioned CFTC spot-market authority could raise baseline integrity if paired with explicit wallet carve-outs. Without those carve-outs, oversight may spill into base-layer usage and coordination services, undermining user control. Targeted drafting is the lever that reconciles market surveillance with permissionless design.

Advocacy remains pivotal while conference language is unsettled. Concentrated, respectful phone outreach to key Senate offices can secure the protective tests before year-end votes. If enacted cleanly, U.S. standards will set the template many jurisdictions mirror or contest.

Some Key Information Gaps

1. What statutory language most effectively protects non-custodial developers while surviving last-minute amendments? The exact phrasing is the highest-leverage determinant of legal risk and industry structure.
2. Under what conditions would CFTC spot-market authority improve market integrity without harming self-custody? Guardrails are needed to confine oversight to intermediaries and avoid burdening neutral tools.
3. What are the measurable chilling effects of Section 1960/BSA prosecutions on open-source wallet development? Evidence on contributor attrition, funding, and release cadence would inform courts and legislators.
4. Which educational formats most efficiently lift Senate staff from low familiarity to voting competence within weeks? Repeatable playbooks can convert complex technical issues into actionable decision criteria.
5. What legal principles should define the boundary between neutral infrastructure and user conduct for code, wallets, and adjacent tools? A durable framework would generalize across software categories and reduce policy volatility.

Broader Implications for Bitcoin

Regulatory Architecture for Neutral Tools

Clarity around non-custodial software would become a template for other general-purpose technologies, from privacy tools to open-source AI. Legislatures that codify control-based tests can regulate intermediaries without deputizing developers as compliance gatekeepers. Over time this architecture would encourage safer design patterns that minimize unilateral control and externalize fewer compliance risks.

Capital Formation and Open-Source Sustainability

Legal certainty tends to crowd in patient capital for public-goods maintenance and security reviews. If non-custodial protections hold, maintainers can accept funding without importing money-transmitter obligations, and insurers can underwrite operational risks more confidently. The result is a deeper pipeline of audited, modular components that reduce systemic fragility.

Self-Custody as Consumer Protection Baseline

When self-custody is not treated as a regulated service, consumer protection can focus on disclosures, wallet UX, and recovery options rather than licensing developers. That shift aligns incentives toward safer key management, clearer risk labeling, and verifiable proofs of control. Households and institutions benefit from tools that are both permissionless and auditable.

Jurisdictional Competition and Policy Diffusion

U.S. definitions will inform copy-paste proposals in Europe and Asia, shaping whether global builders converge on common control tests. Countries that embrace neutral-tool protections can attract high-skill teams and security research clusters. Over a three-to-five-year window, this competition will influence where custody, brokerage, and base-layer innovation concentrate.

Market Integrity Without Custodial Drift

Pairing narrow market-abuse surveillance with explicit non-custodial carve-outs demonstrates that integrity and permissionlessness are compatible. Regulators gain clearer targets while users retain final control of assets and transaction construction. This balance reduces the political pressure to re-intermediate Bitcoin through licensed custodians.