Ukraine’s central bank has refused to support the latest version of the country’s cryptocurrency regulation bill, warning that several provisions could threaten financial stability and give regulators excessive control over market access.
Summary
- Ukraine’s central bank has refused to support the latest version of the country’s cryptocurrency regulation bill, citing concerns over financial stability, foreign tokens and market oversight.
- The regulator warned that foreign tokens functioning as electronic money could enter Ukraine without sufficient supervision, while overseas issuers could bypass requirements imposed on domestic companies.
- The NBU raised concerns about potential monopolization and corruption in crypto exchange licensing, as the revised bill leaves the number of authorized operators to the securities regulator’s discretion.
- The central bank said the final draft excluded several compromises reached during negotiations and called on lawmakers to revise the legislation before its adoption.
In a November 4 statement, the National Bank of Ukraine said draft law No. 10225-d, which is being prepared for its second reading in parliament, does not address several concerns raised during discussions with lawmakers and industry representatives.
The regulator identified three major problems involving foreign tokens that function as electronic money, unequal regulatory requirements for domestic and overseas assets, and the potential monopolization of crypto trading platforms.
Although the central bank supports regulating cryptocurrencies under the European Union’s Markets in Crypto-Assets framework, or MiCA, it wants lawmakers to revise the proposal before proceeding with its adoption.
Ukraine’s central bank warns of risks from foreign crypto tokens
One of the central bank’s main objections concerns provisions that would allow foreign-issued tokens to enter Ukraine’s market without sufficient oversight.
According to the NBU, some of these assets could effectively function as electronic money despite not being subject to equivalent regulatory supervision in their countries of issuance.
The bank warned that allowing such tokens to circulate without appropriate safeguards could undermine Ukraine’s monetary sovereignty, interfere with the transmission of monetary policy and create risks for the country’s payment infrastructure.
To address these concerns, the regulator wants the authority to assess foreign tokens before they enter the Ukrainian market and restrict their circulation when necessary.
The proposed powers would be similar to those available for tokens issued domestically, allowing the central bank to apply comparable safeguards regardless of where an asset originates.
Another concern involves the possibility that foreign virtual assets could receive more favorable treatment than comparable Ukrainian products.
The NBU argued that simplified admission procedures should not allow overseas issuers to bypass requirements imposed on domestic companies, warning that such differences could leave parts of the market outside effective government supervision.
Its preferred approach would establish consistent admission requirements and prevent regulatory arbitrage between foreign and domestic virtual assets.
Crypto exchange licensing raises monopoly and corruption concerns
The central bank raised separate objections to how the legislation would authorize operators of cryptocurrency trading platforms.
According to the NBU, certain provisions could create opportunities for market monopolization and potential corruption during the authorization process overseen by Ukraine’s National Securities and Stock Market Commission.
Initially, the central bank supported allowing an unlimited number of trading platform operators, provided they satisfied the applicable regulatory requirements.
During negotiations, however, it accepted a compromise proposed by the securities regulator that would initially restrict authorization to three legal entities selected through a competitive process.
The latest version reportedly removes that specific limit and leaves the number of operators permitted during the first five years entirely to the securities commission’s discretion.
The NBU argued that the arrangement lacks sufficient safeguards against anticompetitive practices and called for clear, transparent rules governing authorization decisions.
Ukraine’s crypto legislation faces disagreement before second reading
The dispute follows several years of efforts to establish a comprehensive legal framework for cryptocurrency trading and taxation in Ukraine.
As previously reported by crypto.news, the Verkhovna Rada approved the legislation at its first reading in September 2025, with 246 lawmakers voting in favor and 31 opposing it.
The proposed framework includes taxation rules for cryptocurrency transactions and regulatory requirements for virtual asset service providers.
Earlier, Ukraine’s securities regulator had proposed a 23% tax on individual cryptocurrency income, comprising an 18% personal income tax and a 5% military levy.
The latest draft is intended to take effect on July 1, 2027, and includes a preferential 5% tax rate for qualifying crypto profits through the end of 2028.
Despite participating in the working group responsible for developing the legislation, the NBU complained that the final review process lacked transparency.
The central bank said it received the committee-recommended text only late on November 3, leaving little time to examine changes before the November 4 meeting.
NBU Deputy Governor Oleksii Shaban presented the institution’s objections during that meeting, but the bank said the discussion format prevented a detailed examination of its concerns.
The parliamentary finance committee nevertheless recommended that lawmakers approve the legislation at its second reading and in full.
Ukraine’s securities commission has supported advancing the bill, arguing that formal regulation would bring existing cryptocurrency activity under state supervision and establish clearer requirements for market participants.
The NBU has called on parliament to revise the disputed provisions with input from the institutions and industry representatives involved in drafting the legislation.
