Ukraine’s central bank demands changes to crypto bill over token and licensing risks

Ukraine's central bank is refusing to support virtual-asset bill 10225-d in its current form, saying the proposed framework leaves gaps in token oversight and too much discretion over who can operate trading platforms. The dispute centers on how to build a regulated market without weakening monetary safeguards or restricting competition.

The National Bank of Ukraine supports regulation based on the European Union's MiCA approach, international standards and IMF recommendations. Its objection is to the design of the current text, rather than to the existence of a legal cryptocurrency market.

Foreign tokens are the first concern

The NBU argues that some foreign tokens could enter Ukraine while performing functions similar to electronic money without adequate oversight in their home jurisdictions. It wants authority to assess the risks of those instruments and, where necessary, restrict their circulation.

The concern is functional as well as geographic: comparable assets should not face materially different safeguards simply because one was issued abroad. The bank says simplified access for foreign tokens must not become a route around obligations that apply to domestic equivalents.

That distinction is relevant to monetary policy and financial stability. The NBU's position is that innovation can develop within a regulated market, but the authorities need clear powers to address payment-like instruments and the risks they create.

Who gets a platform licence?

A separate disagreement concerns authorization of trading-platform operators. The NBU initially favored allowing any operator that satisfied the requirements to participate. During negotiations, it accepted a temporary compromise involving three operators chosen through competition.

The bank says the final version instead leaves the permitted number of operators during the first five years to the National Securities and Stock Market Commission's discretion. It wants transparent authorization rules written into law to reduce the risk of concentration and abuse.

The difference has commercial consequences. Standards that a new entrant can assess and meet provide a different route into the market from a discretionary decision over how many competitors may operate.

Negotiations have not settled the framework

The NBU also criticized the drafting process, saying important compromises from the working group were missing from the final version recommended for a second reading. It has called for further work involving lawmakers, regulators, market participants and other stakeholders.

Its public position was available on November 4. The dispute therefore concerns legislation under consideration, rather than a newly enacted prohibition on cryptocurrency or proof that the proposed authorization regime is already operating.

For businesses preparing to serve Ukrainian users, the unresolved issue is the final distribution of powers and obligations. The next decisive evidence will be the legislation adopted by parliament and the implementing rules, including how foreign assets are admitted and how platforms qualify to operate.