Blockchain firms dodge money-transmitter rules, users lose protections
H.R. 3533 — Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act · Filed by Tom Emmer (R-MN) · 5 cosponsors · Introduced May 21, 2025 · Referred to committee
Your members of Congress
Enter a ZIP to see where your representative and both senators stood on this bill.
Looked up on this device — your ZIP is never stored on our servers.
What it does
This bill exempts blockchain developers and service providers from federal and state money-transmitter licensing and registration requirements, as long as they do not have unilateral control over users' digital assets. A developer who merely builds the software or operates the network infrastructure is shielded from financial regulation; only those who actually hold or control customer funds face licensing obligations. The bill preempts state laws that would impose stricter requirements.
Why we flagged it
The bill's operative mechanism is a blanket exemption from money-transmitter and financial-institution licensing for blockchain entities, conditioned on a narrow definition of 'control.' This is a regulatory safe harbor—a form of deregulation that removes compliance obligations from a sector without requiring demonstrated consumer protection or fraud prevention.
What the text implies
- The 'control' definition excludes only unilateral, independent legal right to initiate transactions—but does not address de facto control through smart-contract design, operational authority, or technical architecture. A service provider could retain effective control while the definition shields them.
- State law preemption (subsection b(2)) prevents states from imposing stricter consumer-protection or anti-fraud requirements on blockchain services, even if those requirements would apply to traditional money transmitters in the same state.
- The exemption applies regardless of transaction volume, user base, or systemic risk—no threshold, no prudential safeguards, no consumer-complaint mechanism required.
- Intellectual property carve-out (subsection b(1)) preserves IP law but does not clarify whether blockchain developers can be held liable for fraud, negligence, or breach of fiduciary duty through common law—only licensing/registration is exempted.
Section numbers refer to the bill text the analysis read — linked under Primary records below.
Who it affects
Citizens lose regulatory protections and licensing oversight that would normally apply to entities facilitating financial transactions. Blockchain developers and service providers can operate without money-transmitter licensing, consumer-protection compliance, or anti-fraud registration, even when they provide services functionally identical to regulated financial intermediaries. The safe harbor is conditioned only on not having 'control' over assets—a narrow definition that may not capture de f
Who stands to gain
- blockchain developers and service providers
- cryptocurrency exchanges and custodians
- decentralized finance (DeFi) platforms
- blockchain infrastructure companies
Named in the bill
blockchain developers, blockchain service providers, blockchain networks, digital assets, money transmitters, financial institutions, state regulators, federal regulators
Where it stands
5 cosponsors: 3 Republicans, 2 Democrats.
- May 21, 2025 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in House”
- May 21, 2025 — Referred to House Committee on Financial Services · Congress.gov: “Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services”
Dates and quoted wording are Congress.gov's action record; the timeline shows status changes, not every procedural step.
Money around this bill
10 lobbying clients named this bill on 12 disclosure filings across 3 quarters, Dec 2025 to Jun 2026. Those filings disclosed $2,440,000 in lobbying spend. A filing names 6 bills on average, so that figure is what each filing reported, not a share belonging to this bill.
More lobbying clients named this bill than 91% of bills with at least one filing.
Tom Emmer, the sponsor, reported $2,391,750 in PAC receipts in the 2026 cycle.
- Blockchain Association — $740,000 on 2 filings
- Solana Policy Institute — $610,000 on 1 filing
- Defi Education Fund — $580,000 on 2 filings
- Crypto Council for Innovation — $310,000 on 1 filing
- Blockchain Association — $50,000 on 1 filing
Lobbying Disclosure Act filings through Jul 20, 2026. A filing shows who paid to lobby on a bill it names, not what changed.
How this was measured
Analysis — Quorum's AI read the bill text published by Congress.gov (2,970 characters) on May 21, 2026. Section numbers in the findings refer to that text, linked below; transparency and hidden-provision scores are compared against the median of 16,222 analysed bills.
Status and sponsors — Congress.gov's bill record — actions, committee referrals and cosponsors — loaded nightly. The timeline shows status changes, not every procedural action.
Money — Senate Lobbying Disclosure Act filings whose specific-issue field names this bill for quarters ending Dec 2025 to Jun 2026. A filing's amount is reported whole beside the median number of bills a filing names; it is never divided across them. PAC receipts are FEC-reported contributions to the sponsor's candidate committee in the 2026 cycle.
As of — lobbying records through Jul 20, 2026 · page rendered 2026-10-20.
“Blockchain firms dodge money-transmitter rules, users lose protections” QuorumCivic. https://share.quorumcivic.app/bill/119/hr3533 Report an error
The week in bills
One email, Sunday: what Congress passed, what it changed, and who paid.
One link arrives to confirm the address. It is used for this email and nothing else, and every issue carries an unsubscribe link.