Ukraine’s crypto bill has stalled. On November 5, the central bank (NBU) made clear that it does not support the current version of Bill No. 10225-d and called for revisions before its second reading.
There are three reasons. First, the draft would allow foreign tokens that are not even regulated in their countries of issuance to enter Ukraine. Some of these also function as electronic money. The NBU is concerned they could undermine monetary sovereignty and the payment system, and wants authority to restrict such tokens. Second, permissive access for foreign assets could become a channel for circumventing domestic oversight. Third, the number of licenses for trading platforms was initially agreed to be limited to three in the first round, awarded through a competitive selection process. But the final draft instead lets the securities regulator decide on its own over the next five years. The NBU sees risks of monopoly and corruption in this arrangement.
The securities regulator (NSSMC), however, supports the bill, arguing that the market is already operating in a gray area and should first be brought under a regulatory framework. So now the central bank and securities regulator are publicly at odds, and the bill is stalled before its second reading.
My view is that the key issue here is not whether Ukraine should legalize crypto, but who gets the regulatory authority and who gets to screen foreign tokens. The NBU fears that the securities regulator will open the door too wide, leaving the central bank to bear the blame if monetary stability is ultimately at risk. In the short term, this is a turf battle between agencies. In the long term, how powers are divided under this regulatory framework will determine what the final bill looks like.
If you’d like to keep up with regulatory developments like this, follow me.
$BTC #乌克兰央行反对现行加密资产法案 $SOL $ZEC
This is an objective summary of publicly available information and mechanisms, and does not constitute investment advice.
There are three reasons. First, the draft would allow foreign tokens that are not even regulated in their countries of issuance to enter Ukraine. Some of these also function as electronic money. The NBU is concerned they could undermine monetary sovereignty and the payment system, and wants authority to restrict such tokens. Second, permissive access for foreign assets could become a channel for circumventing domestic oversight. Third, the number of licenses for trading platforms was initially agreed to be limited to three in the first round, awarded through a competitive selection process. But the final draft instead lets the securities regulator decide on its own over the next five years. The NBU sees risks of monopoly and corruption in this arrangement.
The securities regulator (NSSMC), however, supports the bill, arguing that the market is already operating in a gray area and should first be brought under a regulatory framework. So now the central bank and securities regulator are publicly at odds, and the bill is stalled before its second reading.
My view is that the key issue here is not whether Ukraine should legalize crypto, but who gets the regulatory authority and who gets to screen foreign tokens. The NBU fears that the securities regulator will open the door too wide, leaving the central bank to bear the blame if monetary stability is ultimately at risk. In the short term, this is a turf battle between agencies. In the long term, how powers are divided under this regulatory framework will determine what the final bill looks like.
If you’d like to keep up with regulatory developments like this, follow me.
$BTC #乌克兰央行反对现行加密资产法案 $SOL $ZEC
This is an objective summary of publicly available information and mechanisms, and does not constitute investment advice.