An Open Letter to #USA #Congress on Bitcoin, Law, and Responsibility
To the Members of the United States Congress,
This letter is not a demand for special treatment, deregulation, or exemption from the law.
It is a request for #clarity — something only Congress has the authority to provide.
Bitcoin has existed in the United States for over fifteen years. During that time, #Americans have used it to save, build, transmit value, publish software, secure networks, and participate in open-source innovation. Throughout this period, Congress has held hearings, issued statements, and proposed partial frameworks — yet has never clearly defined how existing law applies to non-custodial digital infrastructure.
That omission has had consequences.
⸻
Where the system broke down
Congress’s role is to write laws that reflect reality.
When Congress does not act, interpretation shifts elsewhere.
In the absence of clear statutory guidance:
• regulatory agencies applied inconsistent frameworks,
• prosecutors filled gaps through enforcement actions,
• courts were asked to define technology in criminal cases,
• builders learned the boundaries of legality only after punishment.
This is not how a functioning legal system is meant to operate.
⸻
The #core issue is simple
#U.S. law has historically regulated custody and control, not the existence of tools.
Banks are regulated because they hold funds.
Money transmitters are regulated because they control transactions.
Manufacturers of locks, safes, encryption, and software are not regulated as financial institutions because they do not possess or direct assets.
Bitcoin introduced a new category: non-custodial infrastructure — software and protocols that allow individuals to act independently, without intermediaries.
Congress has never clearly stated where responsibility begins and ends in this context.
That silence is now being interpreted in courtrooms.
⸻
Why this matters beyond Bitcoin
This issue is not about one technology.
It concerns:
• open-source software development,
• privacy-preserving tools,
• neutral protocols,
• and the line between building and controlling.
When liability is unclear, innovation retreats.
When rules are learned through prosecution, trust erodes.
When courts replace legislatures, democratic accountability weakens.
⸻
What clarity would look like
Congress does not need to endorse Bitcoin to govern it well.
A single principle would resolve most uncertainty:
Liability for money transmission should require custody or control of another person’s funds.
This would:
• preserve enforcement against real financial intermediaries,
• protect non-custodial developers and users,
• restore predictability,
• and realign responsibility with actual power.
⸻
This is a failure of process, not intent
Many lawmakers have engaged thoughtfully with digital assets.
The failure here is structural — delay, fragmentation, and avoidance of hard definitions.
But avoiding clarity does not avoid consequences.
It merely shifts them onto citizens, courts, and families.
⸻
A respectful request
Bitcoin did not break the law.
It exposed where the law was unfinished.
Congress still has the opportunity — and responsibility — to finish it.
Respectfully,
A citizen asking for rules that can be known before they are enforced
#USA #Bitcoin #BTC #btc #laws
