Coin Center is pushing the argument that publishing crypto software is protected speech, not a criminal act. That matters because the DOJ's recent shift has made the line between code and conduct newly important.
Coin Center has put a sharper legal frame around one of the biggest unresolved questions in crypto: when is writing software protected expression, and when does it become regulated financial conduct? In a report published April 21, the advocacy group argued that publishing crypto code is closer to writing a book or a recipe than acting as a financial intermediary, a view that lands at a moment when Washington appears less eager to prosecute developers into submission.
The timing is not accidental. Crypto developers spent the last year watching high-profile cases define the edges of liability, especially around Tornado Cash and Samourai Wallet, where the government argued that code used by others could still support criminal charges. Coin Center's answer is that this approach mistakes the tool for the actor, and that the Constitution should not shrink just because the medium is software.
That is where the First Amendment argument becomes more than an academic dispute. Coin Center executive director Peter Van Valkenburgh and research director Lizandro Pieper said developers who publish and maintain software are speakers and inventors, not custodians or fiduciaries, and that licensing or pre-registration requirements would amount to a prior restraint on speech. Their point is simple: if the state can require permission before code is published, then it can quietly control the most important infrastructure layer in modern finance.
Where regulation starts
The Coin Center paper does not claim that all crypto activity is untouchable. It draws a line between publishing software and directly controlling assets or making decisions on behalf of users, which is where regulators have a much stronger case for oversight.
That distinction matters because it preserves the normal logic of financial regulation without pretending that every developer is operating a bank. If a programmer merely releases code, the argument goes, the government is dealing with expression. If that programmer starts moving funds, acting as custodian, or executing transactions for customers, it becomes conduct and can be regulated accordingly.
Coin Center also leaned on old constitutional law to make the point that this is not some novel crypto exception. It cited Lowe v. SEC, a Supreme Court case that protected a publisher who was not taking action on a client's behalf, and used that precedent to argue that lower courts have gone too far in treating software as diminished speech simply because it produces real-world effects.
That is the legal battle in miniature. Regulators want a workable way to police money laundering, fraud, and sanctions evasion. Developers want a rule that does not turn open-source publishing into a licensing regime with criminal exposure attached to the wrong user behavior.
The DOJ shift
The new backdrop is the Justice Department's changing tone. Reporting around the April 2025 memo suggests the DOJ moved away from the era of trying to solve crypto risk mainly through prosecutions, which is why Coin Center's argument now sounds less defensive and more strategic.
That shift matters because it changes the incentive structure for the whole industry. When prosecutors are aggressive, developers hire lawyers before they write code. When enforcement pulls back, companies can spend more time on product design, compliance architecture, and user adoption. The message to the market is not that risk vanished, but that the government may be less willing to treat every protocol as a suspect enterprise.
That is especially relevant for the broader crypto policy environment under President Donald Trump's second term, which has already been notably friendlier to the sector. The SEC under Paul S. Atkins is also being pushed toward a more deregulatory posture, while a series of cases and enforcement actions against firms such as Coinbase, Kraken, Consensys, Robinhood, OpenSea, Cumberland, and Ripple have either been dropped or materially softened.
For crypto developers, that does not mean the legal overhang is gone. It does mean the center of gravity is moving. The real debate now is whether the law will keep treating software authors like intermediaries or whether courts will accept Coin Center's view that code, even when it is functional, remains protected expression unless the developer starts acting like a financial service provider.
That is a consequential distinction for Bitcoin infrastructure, wallets, DeFi tools, and privacy software. If Coin Center's reading wins broader acceptance, the industry gets a clearer constitutional shield and a little more room to build. If it does not, every new protocol will keep carrying the same uncomfortable question: how much speech can a regulator call conduct before innovation starts to look like a licensing offense ?
