On August 4, 2026, Vladimir Putin signed the long-awaited law on cryptocurrency regulation. Formally, this is a historic step for Russia's digital economy, but the details of the document raise many questions among market participants. I analyzed the key provisions together with leading industry experts, and here is what really matters.
The very fact of creating a legal framework for crypto assets is undoubted progress. However, as Dmitry Zuev, co-founder and CEO of NGE Farm, notes, the controversy is not about regulation itself, but about the chosen structure. Instead of creating an ecosystem for the development of decentralized projects, the legislator has bet on integrating exchanges into the traditional banking and brokerage framework. This paves the way for derivatives, including ETFs, but at the same time builds a rigid centralized framework around decentralized systems.
According to the expert, this approach is still better than a ban—it gives the industry ample room to maneuver. But there is a flip side: within the country, no environment is being formed where new crypto projects could emerge. Blogger Konstantin Koshelev, known under the pseudonym "CryptoGrandpa," also spoke sarcastically: in his words, the law was adopted solely "for the common good," although those at the top probably know better what cryptocurrency is and why the average citizen needs it.
Loans and the liquidity issue
Daria Petrukhina, consultant at IPN Partners, considers the restriction on the circle of persons entitled to provide digital currency under a loan agreement to be the most debatable provision. According to Article 30 of the law, only crypto brokers, trust managers, crypto exchanges, and clearing organizations can act as lenders. Miners, who receive currency as a result of their activities, and private investors with large portfolios remain outside the closed list. They are effectively deprived of the opportunity to use their assets to manage liquidity through the loan mechanism.
There is some logic here: a loan agreement could serve as formal cover for other operations, and monitoring its execution is difficult. However, the law itself provides for specialized accounting infrastructure—digital accounts and address identifiers. As Petrukhina emphasizes, the movement of a digital asset is potentially traceable, and the fulfillment of obligations is verifiable. This makes the restriction on lenders excessive.
The problem is especially acute for miners. The law simultaneously denies them access to loans and establishes criteria under which operations to sell digital currency may require the status of a crypto exchange. In the regulated framework, a miner has a limited set of ways to realize liquidity, and one of the few is selling to professional market participants. This gives rise to a separate problem of market pricing: will a miner be able to get a competitive price for their asset, or will they be forced to accept the terms of a limited circle of buyers?
My analysis: the adoption of the law is only the first step. The key risk is excessive centralization, which could stifle innovation and create a gray market. I am confident that in the coming months we will see refinement of the provisions, especially regarding loans and the status of miners; otherwise, the new law risks becoming a brake on the industry rather than a stimulus.