Developers who have no direct control, custody, or management authority over user assets shouldn't face the same regulatory burden as custodians—that's just rational policy design, not a radical take. The goal here is straightforward: modernize crypto regulation with actual common sense, ensuring digital asset oversight remains effective while maintaining robust AML and anti-financial crime protections. It's entirely possible to have sensible regulation and strong compliance controls simultaneously.

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
  • Reward
  • 4
  • Repost
  • Share
Comment
0/400
AlphaBrainvip
· 6h ago
Someone finally said it. Developers are not banks, so why are they being regulated like custodians?
View OriginalReply0
GasBanditvip
· 01-13 18:05
Exactly, developers are not banks. Why should they be bound by the same strict rules?
View OriginalReply0
SilentObservervip
· 01-13 18:03
Developers shouldn't be treated as custodians to be regulated in the first place. Isn't this logic a bit unclear...
View OriginalReply0
DegenDreamervip
· 01-13 17:45
Someone finally said it. Developers are not banks, so why should they have the same regulatory standards?
View OriginalReply0
  • Pin

Trade Crypto Anywhere Anytime
qrCode
Scan to download Gate App
Community
  • 简体中文
  • English
  • Tiếng Việt
  • 繁體中文
  • Español
  • Русский
  • Français (Afrique)
  • Português (Portugal)
  • Bahasa Indonesia
  • 日本語
  • بالعربية
  • Українська
  • Português (Brasil)