At the end of April 2025, Ukraine’s Parliamentary Committee on Finance, Tax, and Customs Policy unanimously endorsed a revised draft law on virtual assets. However, this was neither the version previously developed in collaboration with the National Securities and Stock Market Commission, nor the alternative proposed by the Ministry of Digital Transformation. Instead, lawmakers supported a reworked version of the bill.
The primary aim of the legislation is to establish clear regulations for the circulation of digital assets, define their taxation, and protect the rights of market participants.
The bill sets out licensing requirements for crypto-related service providers and introduces definitions for key industry terms.
According to Kyrylo Khomiakov, Regional Head of Binance for Central and Eastern Europe, Central Asia, and Africa, the updated draft brings Ukraine’s regulatory framework much closer to the European model.
This latest version significantly differs from earlier iterations — and, for some, it signals hope for a more transparent crypto market in Ukraine. Bogdan Opryshko, COO of Everstake, a global non-custodial staking provider, commented:
“Harmonization with MiCA is a strategically sound move. It paves the way for licensing within the EU and will accelerate the entry of Ukrainian companies into global markets.”
Still, not everyone shares this optimism. Maksym Demyaniuk, founder of UAHg.io, acknowledged that any legal framework is better than none. However, he expressed skepticism about whether aligning Ukrainian regulations too closely with European standards would actually incentivize business development. In his view, given the Ukrainian context — particularly a dysfunctional judiciary and a banking system that is “even more sluggish than Europe’s” — crypto companies are unlikely to choose Ukraine as their jurisdiction of choice.
Oleksandr Momot, founder and CEO of Peanut Trade, believes Ukrainian lawmakers missed an opportunity. Rather than leveraging the situation created by the EU’s strict MiCA regulations to offer a more flexible alternative, he argues, they “cherry-picked the worst aspects of MiCA and layered on even more complexity.”
“In the end,” he said, “even the modest benefits Ukraine could have gained from legalizing the status of cryptocurrencies are likely to be overshadowed. The new law may drive much larger volumes into the shadows, ultimately delivering few — if any — tangible advantages.”
Vadym Hrusha, CEO of Trustee Plus, echoed this concern. He warned that, in its current form, the bill could contribute to further shadowing of the market rather than promoting transparency.“On one hand, the bill is overly complicated,” Hrusha noted. “On the other, it fails to adequately address the core issues it set out to solve.”
Volodymyr Nosov, founder and president of WhiteBIT Group, expressed a similar view, highlighting both the complexity of the legislation and its limited practical usability:
“Let’s be honest: the bill is complicated — both in its content and its future implementation. It is unlikely to be accessible to a broad audience. And without widespread public adoption of virtual assets, blockchain solutions, and crypto technologies in daily life, the industry won’t be able to reach its full potential.”
WhiteBIT Group also flagged a number of issues in the draft law that, in their view, require serious revision. One key concern is the lack of a provision barring market access to companies that continued servicing citizens of the aggressor state during the war.
Vadym Hrusha criticized the overall structure of the document, calling it poorly organized and riddled with gaps in terminology and definitions — particularly those essential for understanding the nature of virtual assets:
“Essentially, this renders the law ineffective for the objectives it is supposed to address.”
Still, there are some signs of progress, particularly in the area of taxation. WhiteBIT welcomed the removal of previously proposed measures deemed unworkable — including a provision that would have designated crypto operators as tax agents. Volodymyr Nosov also pointed to the introduction of a transitional preferential tax regime as a positive step.
The bill outlines how crypto transactions should be taxed. For individuals, it sets an 18% personal income tax (PIT) and a 5% military levy, with a temporary preferential rate of just 5% on asset sales in effect throughout 2026.
Hrusha acknowledged “significant progress” in clarifying tax calculation rules. However, the requirement to provide documented proof of acquisition costs for virtual assets remains intact.
Bohdan Opryshko of Everstake warned that allowing individuals to self-declare crypto income, without robust enforcement mechanisms, risks becoming little more than a formality.
“This legislation could be a powerful catalyst for the industry — but only with professional implementation and a shift in mindset among public institutions. We need to move from coercive pressure to constructive dialogue with the business community. At the same time, these changes could also trigger stricter financial monitoring, potentially becoming yet another barrier to market growth,” he concluded.
One of the most significant — and controversial — changes in the updated bill is the uncertainty surrounding the regulatory body. According to the draft, this role will be assumed by the National Bank of Ukraine (NBU) and/or another institution designated by the Cabinet of Ministers. Nearly every industry representative interviewed by Incrypted highlighted this as a major point of concern.
“The current version leaves one major question unanswered — who exactly will regulate the market?” said Kyrylo Khomiakov, Regional Head of Binance for CEE, Central Asia, and Africa. “This could become a serious problem for the appointed authority, especially if it doesn’t have enough time to build a team, draft secondary legislation, or prepare licensing conditions before the law comes into force.”
The success or failure of the new law will depend heavily on the capabilities and approach of the main regulator, stressed Maksym Demianiuk.
“If it’s the Securities Commission — it’s a nonstarter. If it’s the National Bank or the Ministry of Digital Transformation — then we might see something more promising.”
Oleksandr Momot echoed this skepticism, arguing that neither the NBU nor the National Securities and Stock Market Commission (NSSMC) are suitable options to oversee the virtual asset market.
According to Oleksandr Momot, the National Bank of Ukraine is likely to apply pressure on anything unrelated to the hryvnia, while the Securities Commission could drag the crypto industry into the same stagnation that has plagued the country’s stock market:
“There won’t be a market — and Ukraine will fall further behind developed nations. The momentum we had back in 2013–2014 is long gone.”
The crypto industry has long voiced frustration over delays in regulation. Although a previous version of the law was passed in 2022, it was never enacted due to a lack of political will. Those lost years — nearly three of them — have allowed other countries to not only pass legislation but also successfully implement it, becoming magnets for global crypto business.
“Unfortunately, many opportunities have already slipped away because the earlier law was never put into force,” said Volodymyr Nosov, founder of WhiteBIT Group. “This time, it’s crucial not to repeat the same mistakes.”
The question remains: will Ukrainian lawmakers finally deliver — or will history repeat itself?
After the Parliamentary Committee backed the new draft law, it was widely expected to pass its first reading, with revisions to follow. But, as the saying goes, things didn’t go as planned.
The updated version was sharply criticized by the National Securities and Stock Market Commission (NSSMC). In a comment to Incrypted, the Commission stated the bill still required significant revisions.
Soon after, MP Yaroslav Zheleznyak made a striking announcement: the President’s Office had requested the bill be pulled from the agenda entirely. According to him, the driving force behind this decision was none other than the NSSMC itself — specifically its head, Ruslan Magomedov. Zheleznyak claims Magomedov is a close associate of Andriy Yermak, head of the Presidential Office, and holds sway over him.
In response, the Commission denied any involvement, stating it had “no relation to any decisions regarding the suspension or blockage of the bill’s review in Parliament.”
As of May 2025, the draft law hangs in limbo, its fate uncertain.
These political maneuvers continue to undermine the growth of Ukraine’s crypto industry. For years, stakeholders and the broader crypto community have voiced a clear willingness to engage with lawmakers and support legalization efforts. In conversations with our editorial team, multiple companies reaffirmed that commitment — but they’re still waiting for the state to meet them halfway.
New developments — and what now appears to be another likely delay in adopting the long-awaited crypto regulation bill — have left many in the industry frustrated.
“We’re disappointed that the situation surrounding the virtual assets bill in Ukraine remains unresolved,” said Vadym Hrusha, CEO of Trustee Plus.
According to him, the company remains open to participating in working groups and is ready to contribute to finalizing Ukraine’s crypto legislation by leveraging its experience in European markets. However, given the current circumstances, Trustee Plus has made the decision to stop exploring the Ukrainian market altogether and shift its focus entirely to the EU, where regulation is already in place.
“Every day we wait for this legislation to be passed is another day Ukraine falls further behind global trends in blockchain innovation,” Hrusha emphasized.