Ukraine's push to build a regulated framework for digital assets has hit a significant wall. The country's National Bank has formally refused to endorse draft law 10225-d, the virtual assets bill that recently cleared Ukraine's parliament for a second reading. The central bank's position, centered on what it sees as critical gaps in the legislation's treatment of foreign tokens and platform licensing, injects fresh uncertainty into a regulatory process that the country's crypto industry has been watching closely for years.
The standoff is a familiar tension playing out in an unfamiliar geography. Ukraine has long been among the most crypto-active nations in Eastern Europe, with millions of citizens holding or transacting in digital assets — a habit accelerated during wartime when cross-border value transfer became a matter of practical necessity. Getting a coherent legal framework in place has been a stated priority for Kyiv, both to attract investment and to align with European Union financial standards. Draft law 10225-d was supposed to be a meaningful step in that direction. The National Bank's refusal to back it suggests the current text falls meaningfully short of what the country's financial regulators consider acceptable.
What the Central Bank Objects To
The National Bank's core objections target two structural weaknesses in the draft legislation. The first concerns foreign tokens — specifically, the bill's apparent failure to establish adequate safeguards around digital assets issued outside Ukraine's jurisdiction. This is not a trivial concern. A large share of the crypto activity that takes place in Ukraine involves assets like Tether's USDT, Circle's USD Coin (USDC), and other foreign-issued tokens that are effectively beyond the direct regulatory reach of Ukrainian authorities. Any framework that fails to address how these assets are treated domestically leaves a significant portion of real market activity in a legal grey zone.
The second objection concerns platform licensing. For a virtual assets law to function as actual market infrastructure, the entities operating within it — exchanges, custodians, wallet providers — need to be subject to clear, enforceable licensing requirements. The National Bank's position implies that the current draft does not meet that bar, raising the possibility that platforms could operate with insufficient oversight, creating risks for consumers and systemic exposure for the broader financial system. Without robust licensing architecture, a crypto law becomes less a framework for order and more a stamp of legitimacy with no enforcement teeth behind it.
The Parliamentary Dimension
That the bill has been cleared for a second reading in the Verkhovna Rada means it has already survived an initial legislative hurdle. Second readings in Ukraine's parliamentary process are where substantive amendments are typically introduced and debated, which theoretically gives legislators an opportunity to address the National Bank's concerns before any final vote. Whether the political will and technical expertise exist to close the gaps the central bank has identified — particularly on the complex cross-jurisdictional questions around foreign tokens — remains an open question.
The National Bank's refusal to back the bill does not constitute a legislative veto; Ukraine's parliament retains the authority to pass the law regardless of the central bank's position. But regulatory non-endorsement carries real weight. A virtual assets framework enacted over the objections of the country's primary financial regulator would face implementation headaches from day one, with an institution that lacks confidence in the law's design left to supervise it in practice. That dynamic rarely produces effective oversight.
Ukraine in the Broader Regulatory Context
Ukraine's regulatory journey on crypto has unfolded against an extraordinarily difficult backdrop. The country has been managing an active war while simultaneously attempting to maintain macroeconomic stability, court international financial support, and advance its candidacy for European Union membership. EU accession creates a specific regulatory imperative: Ukraine will eventually need its financial sector rules, including those covering digital assets, to harmonize with the EU's Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) regulation, which came into full effect across the bloc in late 2024. A domestic crypto law with material weaknesses on foreign token oversight and platform licensing would sit uncomfortably against MiCA's comprehensive requirements, potentially complicating Ukraine's integration path.
The irony is that the ambition behind draft law 10225-d is not in dispute. Ukraine clearly needs a legal framework for virtual assets, and the parliamentary process around 10225-d reflects genuine legislative effort. The National Bank's objections are not an argument against regulation — they are an argument for better regulation. The difference between those two positions is important, even if the practical effect in the short term is delay.
What This Means
The National Bank's refusal to support draft law 10225-d is best understood as a stress test of Ukraine's legislative process rather than a fatal blow to crypto regulation in the country. The specific gaps identified — foreign token safeguards and platform licensing — are addressable in principle, even if politically and technically demanding. What the episode reveals is that writing workable crypto law requires more than parliamentary momentum; it requires the kind of precise regulatory thinking that central banks, for better or worse, are often better positioned to supply than legislators. Ukraine's crypto industry, and the international investors watching its regulatory evolution, will be hoping the second reading produces a meaningfully stronger text. If it doesn't, the National Bank's objections will look prescient rather than obstructive.
Written by the editorial team — independent journalism powered by Bitcoin News.