Solana Institute CEO Kristin Smith urged the US Senate to protect open-source developers in the CLARITY Act.
Her core claim was simple. Smith argued that open-source builders should not be regulated as financial intermediaries. In her Senate statement, cited by Cointelegraph, she pushed for a version of the bill that treats developer activity as code work, not broker-dealer or money-transmission-like conduct.
Why the CLARITY Act’s definitions matter
Bills like the CLARITY Act rise or fall on definitions. If lawmakers draft terms broadly enough to catch common software activities, developer teams can end up shouldering compliance burdens they did not design for.
Cointelegraph frames Smith’s point as a safeguard against that outcome. Smith’s argument is that open-source contributors should keep legal room to build and publish without being pulled into intermediary-style oversight.
The risk: “developer” turning into “intermediary”
Smith’s warning targets a specific regulatory trap. Intermediary rules exist for parties that handle funds or route transactions. Open-source development is not the same thing.
But as Cointelegraph reports, Smith’s concern is that the CLARITY Act could still be interpreted or implemented in a way that drags developers into the same bucket as intermediaries. If that happens, the law’s practical effect could shift from clarifying crypto’s compliance boundaries to expanding them.
What Smith asked lawmakers to preserve
According to Cointelegraph, Smith told the Senate to preserve developer protections in the CLARITY Act. The protections she emphasized align with her broader thesis that open-source builders should not be treated as financial intermediaries.
That request is not just rhetorical. It signals that the industry expects specific carve-outs or limits in the bill’s text, not vague promises during hearings.
What readers should watch next
This story is mainly a process story. Cointelegraph reports Smith’s position as part of the Senate’s CLARITY Act conversation.
The practical next step for readers is to track how lawmakers handle the bill’s scope and definitions as the draft language moves. If protections for open-source developers survive intact, the law likely gives teams more certainty. If they don’t, more developers could face regulatory risk simply for publishing and maintaining software.
For now, the desk sees a familiar policy fault line. Regulators want compliance clarity. Developers want boundaries that do not equate publishing code with running a financial business. Smith’s message to the Senate lands squarely on that divide, with Cointelegraph reporting her push to keep it from widening.