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.
4 Likes
Reward
4
4
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
AlphaBrain
· 6h ago
Someone finally said it. Developers are not banks, so why are they being regulated like custodians?
View OriginalReply0
GasBandit
· 01-13 18:05
Exactly, developers are not banks. Why should they be bound by the same strict rules?
View OriginalReply0
SilentObserver
· 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
DegenDreamer
· 01-13 17:45
Someone finally said it. Developers are not banks, so why should they have the same regulatory standards?
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.