The proposed DeFi restricted list would empower the Treasury Department to designate specific decentralized finance protocols as too risky, criminalizing their use and imposing KYC rules on crypto frontends. Critics warn this policy could curtail innovation and dismantle protections for non-custodial development.
Treasury power to blacklist DeFi protocols
Proposal adds KYC obligations to frontends and limits developer protections
House CLARITY Act passed 294-134; the counter-proposal risks reversing bipartisan gains
DeFi restricted list debate centers on Treasury authority over risky protocols — read the latest on legal, policy, and industry responses. Stay informed with COINOTAG.
What is the DeFi restricted list proposal?
The DeFi restricted list proposal would allow the U.S. Treasury Department to identify and designate certain decentralized finance protocols as “restricted,” potentially making use of those protocols a criminal offense. The measure also seeks Know Your Customer (KYC) rules for crypto frontends and narrows legal protections for developers.
How could the measure change crypto frontend rules?
The counter-proposal would impose KYC requirements on the frontends of crypto applications, including non-custodial wallets. That change shifts compliance burdens to interface providers and risks treating access tools as regulated entities rather than focusing on centralized chokepoints where illicit finance typically occurs.
Democratic Senators have been slammed for pitching a counter-proposal that seeks to give the Treasury Department authority to place risky DeFi protocols on a “restricted list.”
Several Democratic Senators, after previously backing a crypto market structure bill, circulated a counter-proposal that could permit the Treasury to add decentralized finance protocols to a “restricted list” if deemed too risky. Industry observers say the approach would fundamentally alter how DeFi is regulated and accessed.
Critics argue the counter-proposal could effectively “kill DeFi” by criminalizing the use of designated protocols and by stripping developers of liability and safe-harbor protections. The measure also calls for increased front-end KYC enforcement, extending scrutiny well beyond centralized exchanges.
The Senate Banking Committee Democrats forwarded this proposal to Republican members on Thursday as part of negotiations over broader market-structure legislation. The draft includes language that would expand Treasury authority and narrow protections previously considered in bipartisan frameworks.
Crypto attorney Jake Chervinsky described the proposal as extreme, saying it risks undoing bipartisan momentum around a workable regulatory framework. He emphasized that the measure moves from regulation into prohibition by enabling a federal blacklist and criminal penalties for users.
Source: Jake Chervinsky
The Democratic sponsors named in public commentary include Mark Warner, Ruben Gallego, Andy Kim, Reverend Raphael Warnock, Angela Alsobrooks, and Lisa Blunt Rochester. The move occurs amid broader budget and regulatory negotiations and follows prior work to create a federal framework for crypto markets.
Why does the counter-proposal clash with the RFIA draft?
The counter-proposal conflicts with the bipartisan Responsible Financial Innovation Act (RFIA) draft that assigns the Commodity Futures Trading Commission clearer oversight of spot markets and seeks to rein in perceived SEC overreach. RFIA also aimed to protect developers from prosecution to encourage innovation.
RFIA’s developer protections were designed in response to recent enforcement actions impacting open-source protocol contributors. The new Democratic language would reduce those safeguards, critics say, increasing legal uncertainty for developers of privacy and wallet software.
Source: Zack Shapiro
What do industry groups say about decentralization and enforcement?
Zunera Mazhar, vice president of government and policy affairs at Digital Chamber, criticized the proposal as heavy-handed. She said it risks driving innovation offshore instead of targeting the true points of illicit activity with a risk-based approach. Mazhar urged focusing enforcement where illicit finance actually occurs.
“Good policy doesn’t punish decentralization,” Mazhar said. “It protects consumers, preserves innovation, and fights illicit finance where it actually happens.” Her comments echo broader industry calls for narrowly tailored rules that preserve open-source development and non-custodial access.
Frequently Asked Questions
How would a DeFi restricted list be enforced?
Enforcement would rely on Treasury rulemaking to identify designated protocols and on criminal penalties for use or facilitation. KYC rules targeting frontends would increase reporting and compliance obligations for interface providers and wallets.
Could the restricted list affect non-custodial wallets?
Yes. The proposal explicitly contemplates KYC duties on frontends, which could include non-custodial wallet interfaces. That shift would move regulatory obligations toward software and UI providers rather than focusing solely on centralized intermediaries.
What legislation does this counter-proposal interact with?
The draft interacts with the Responsible Financial Innovation Act and other market-structure efforts, and could undermine bipartisan elements previously advanced in the House, such as the CLARITY Act, which passed the House 294-134.
Key Takeaways
- Treasury authority expanded: Proposal allows Treasury to designate risky DeFi protocols as restricted.
- Frontend KYC: KYC rules would apply to crypto app interfaces, including non-custodial wallets.
- Bipartisan risk: Critics warn the measure could undo bipartisan frameworks like RFIA and the House’s CLARITY Act.
Conclusion
The DeFi restricted list counter-proposal represents a major shift in how regulators could treat decentralized finance, expanding Treasury power and mandating KYC for frontends. Policymakers and industry groups urge a risk-based approach that protects consumers while preserving innovation. COINOTAG will monitor developments and update this coverage as negotiations continue.