firstly it does not and will not affect developers or pools or node users. (just doing those tasks*)
its a bill that affects custodian services/money services businesses(MSB)

it will on the small businesses that do coinjoins,escrows, custodian services, etc make then have to do more bureaucracy. but on the flip side if they run a legit business and can invest the time and money they can prospoer into being a business that has consumer protections like insurance to protect users value.

big businesses that are already legit dont need to change much as they already KYC customers.

with more businesses able to operate a legit operation which has consumer protections, it can cause more people to want to invest in crypto via these legit services.

the downsides as just breifly hinted is that small businesses that dont bother/didnt comply with certain regulations will need to start doing so
so expect things like other network 'bridge' services that offer fund transfers to need to up their game to stay legit.

dont worry about software developers or pools needing to KYC.
*however if those individuals also have a side hustle such as them being the 'federated' co-signer of locked up funds(custodian) then they will need to make themselves an official MSB for their custodian activities of holding users funds for the purpose of transfers
this also includes things like LN routing, (if LN ever got to a stage of transfering larger amounts more then pizza money)

this means small hobby routers that are trying to make sub-pennies per transaction for pizza money may not have to worry.. but they wont really survive in legit transactions of large amount as routes/transfers would require some KYC stuff happening on larger amounts, which involves centralising and turning routers into official businesses.

you may see some 'honeypot' traps occuring where officials do large trades to catch unregistered routers allowing large transactions. as what happened in a few cases when the bitlicence became law.

but if those wanting to be ethical service providers of large amount custodian/transfers. and are able to register as a MSB. their business, then official can prosper immensely by offering stuff the blackmarket people cant offer.

Now it turned into a big political issue, they left cryptocurrency out from the infrastructure bills cause they have no idea about it. Do politicians have enough ideas about technology? So how will they formulate laws for crypto pay when they have no idea about that!

I've seen some crypto industries sent messages to the house members in this title “fix the crypto pay-for”; maybe it will get attention to house members.

Even if the House decides to enact a new law, I don't think it will take effect anytime soon. If lawmakers enact a new policy, it will take less than two to three years to implement it. It is sure the market will change drastically, and certainly they will have to amend the law again in the next two years.

its a political distraction campaign

if they can get people looking in the left empty hand but convince people there is a gun in that hand and people need to disarm the gun.. they are too oblivious to see the hammer in the right hand swinging to break some numbskulls

the wording of the bill in relation to crypto is about businesses offering services of custodianship. where they take responsibility of funds to then pass onto others.
no where in it does it describe software developers. nor nodes nor pools, nor miners

trying to get amendments of meaningless significance/no change. then allows for the real harms/changes to not be affected

its like saying pretend software developers take responsibility of someones value and give it to someone else. but dont discuss retailers or businesses that actually do take funds and move it about for someone else

heck most of the campaign sheep spammers in the other thread of same topic are LN router fans but they are not even talking about how they could be PERSONALLY affected as routers if LN went up in channel value of $10k plus payments. they just want to repeat the campaign word for word. like they are on autopilot, thinking they can win some dev idol merit points for defending a dev that doesnt need defending.. (very weird strategy)

so while the campaign begs people to say "exclude developers" (meaningless) its not saying exclude retailers or small businesses. or businesses outside the US.

the bill is about MSB businesses. but for some stranger reason. campaigners and sheep spammrs have social drama'ed it into being about something unrelated to custodian services and fund transferers.

and news outlets just publicise it not due to facts or good reporting or investigating. but because its a social trend that went viral