Crypto news

The average fee for transferring $200 abroad is about 6.4%, while through a bank this figure reaches nearly 15%. Moreover, the payment order itself reaches the recipient bank in just ten minutes. This is evidenced by my analysis of the current situation, which digital economist Ravil Akhtyamov examines in detail.

The key problem lies not in the speed of data transmission, but in the so-called "last mile"—compliance checks, reconciliations, and crediting of funds at the local bank. This is where the main time and financial costs are concentrated, and this is where the main battle for the future of payment systems unfolds.

Last week, on August 4, the President of Russia signed the law "On Digital Currency and Digital Rights." This step was a response to global trends: the United States legislatively banned its own digital dollar, Europe is conducting final negotiations on the digital euro, the Bank for International Settlements carried out settlements with real money in the Agorá project, and Mastercard closed the deal to acquire a company involved in stablecoin settlements. All these events answer one question, and the Russian response differs fundamentally: the state is building two payment circuits at once and regulating them differently.

The essence of the dispute is not in technology

The bottleneck is not message transmission. According to SWIFT statistics, three out of four payments reach the recipient bank in ten minutes. Time and money are consumed by the "last mile." The real subject of the dispute is whose obligation you hold in your hands at the moment of settlement: the central bank's, the commercial bank's, a private issuer company's, or the payment network's. This determines who you turn to if a payment goes missing, and who uses the money while it sits in the system.

This balance is the raw material of the banking economy: it is what they earn on, what they issue loans from, and what they keep clients for. Almost every decision of the past year is designed to ensure the balance does not leave the banking system.

Mikhail Kulakov, leading engineer-analyst of the "Blockchain" direction at DiSoft, explains: the question of "whose obligation it is" is a question of where the primary record is maintained and who has the right to change it. The central bank's obligation lives on the regulator's platform, the bank's own obligation lives in its accounting core, and the token issuer's obligation lives in a foreign network to which the bank has read-only access. Three answers yield three reconciliation models and three recovery scenarios in the event of a failure, and the "last mile" is largely the time spent reconciling these records with each other, not a data transmission delay.

What the Russian law introduces

The law comes into force on September 1, 2026, mandatory registration of crypto exchangers in the Bank of Russia registry—from July 1, 2027, and part of the requirements for intermediaries—from September 2027. A new category of professional participants emerges—digital depositories: they maintain records of clients' crypto assets, keep primary and backup IT infrastructure in Russia, and compensate for damages in the event of unlawful write-offs. Crypto exchangers with own funds of at least 15 million rubles are legalized.

The criteria for admitting assets to trading are enshrined in the law itself: capitalization above 5 trillion rubles, average daily turnover above 1 trillion, and a trading history of at least five years, all averaged over two years. Bitcoin and ether fall under these criteria today. For non-qualified investors, a limit of 300 thousand rubles per year with one intermediary and mandatory testing are established.

The norm that will affect practice earlier than others is settlements under foreign trade contracts. It has been in effect since September 2024 in the experimental mode of the Bank of Russia, and the new law converts it to permanent status. Internal payments in cryptocurrency are still not allowed. Not only custodial wallets but also own wallets are permitted; when withdrawing over 100 thousand rubles to an external address, a 48-hour delay is provided—it will take effect on September 1, 2027.

The Central Bank's list itself does not prohibit owning assets outside it: the criteria apply to public offerings through Russian intermediaries, not to property rights, and digital currency is recognized as property with judicial protection. Foreign and non-custodial wallets are not prohibited; the owner is recognized as the one holding the access key. The obligation to declare the very fact of ownership is not directly established—except for civil servants. Two or more transactions per month exceeding 3.5 million rubles are considered by the law as a sign of organized activity requiring intermediary status.

Tax arises upon sale, not upon holding: 13% on income up to 2.4 million rubles and 15% above that, with a 3-NDFL declaration by April 30. The holding-period exemption applicable to certain types of property does not apply to digital currency. From July 1, 2027, banks are obliged to refuse transfers to unlicensed crypto services—the channel for funding foreign platforms through a Russian bank is closing.

Two circuits instead of one

Domestically, from September 1, mandatory acceptance of the digital ruble begins—a state retail currency that the United States has refused until the end of 2030 and that Europe is only designing so far. Externally, the circulation of private global assets is legalized. Both instruments are used simultaneously but separated by purpose: domestically—only the public circuit, externally—only the private one.

The logic of the separation is simple if you look at obligations. Domestically, the balance remains with the Bank of Russia: this provides traceability of settlements and independence from external infrastructure—and simultaneously raises the same privacy question that led the United States to abandon the retail model. Externally, an asset is used that no party to the transaction issues—which is why it works where correspondent channels have become difficult to navigate due to external restrictions in recent years. The sanctions context is not named in the law, but it is the most obvious explanation for the foreign trade norm: it is not about the transfer fee, but about the availability of the channel itself.

The combination of public and private circuits is not unique in itself—China, the UAE, and India do the same. The peculiarity of the Russian model lies in the rigid segmentation by payment purpose, and it is shaped by external circumstances no less than by design.

The divergence in trajectories is explained not only by regulatory but also by architectural choices, Kulakov adds. Retail projects of central banks in BRICS are built on centralized platforms where the distributed ledger is used selectively. Stablecoins live in the opposite paradigm—public networks, an open ledger of records, no single operator. Therefore, two circuits are not two interfaces but two different data models: in one, the record is created by the platform operator; in the other, it is created by the network, and the bank only observes, with the main work falling on the reconciliation layer between them.

The world, the market, and the practical conclusion

The American structure took shape over a year. The GENIUS Act (July 2025) requires full backing of stablecoins with liquid assets and directly prohibits accruing income to holders for the token. And on July 11, 2026, the ban on a retail central bank digital currency became law: until the end of 2030, the Fed is not authorized to issue a CBDC. Europe chose the opposite instrument.

According to ECB data, in 2022 international card schemes accounted for 61% of eurozone card payments, and thirteen countries depend on them entirely. That is why the digital euro is designed as a public alternative with zero yield and a holding limit; the regulation has not been adopted, a pilot is planned for the second half of 2027, and the first issuance—for 2029.

Mastercard closed the purchase of BVNK on August 3, with the announced price in March being up to $1.8 billion, including about $300 million in contingent payments. The asset's value is largely regulatory: BVNK received a license under the MiCA regulation in Malta in February 2026, and it is valid across the entire EU. In July, Visa launched a stablecoin issuance platform for banks. Card networks are embedding new instruments into the settlement layer, retaining the client and the rules for themselves: they do not need the balance; they earn on the flow. The share of stablecoins in cross-border retail payments in 2025 was 0.31%.

The only one to report settlements with real money is the Bank for International Settlements project. On July 30, results were published: about thirty participants, including five central banks, 30 transactions in six currencies totaling around one million dollars, with an average settlement time of 80 seconds versus several business days in correspondent practice. At the same time, the platform operated autonomously, without connection to existing systems and without real compliance procedures.

The engineering value of Agorá is that there is no need to move accounting anywhere: the tokenized deposit remains the obligation of the same bank, the ledger takes on atomicity and synchronization, and data migration is not required, Kulakov explains. But compliance checks, sanctions screening, and the resolution of disputed operations remained outside the scope, and it is precisely these that constitute the "last mile"—so 80 seconds remain a characteristic of the settlement layer, not of the end-to-end payment.

The trajectories of countries diverge. Of the eleven BRICS countries, all are studying digital currencies, nine have reached the pilot stage, but none has fully launched a system. China, from January 1, 2026, reclassified the digital yuan in commercial bank accounts as a deposit obligation—interest accrues on it and deposit insurance applies, meaning Beijing decided to return the balance to banks through yield. India is moving in the opposite direction: the volume of the digital rupee in circulation shrank for the first time by 24% in the 2025/26 fiscal year, and Brazil in November 2025 shut down the Drex platform, admitting that the technology did not ensure privacy and security.

The digital ruble looks modest—as of July 1, over 25 million digital rubles were in circulation, about $320 thousand for the entire country—but in two months, acceptance becomes mandatory for companies with revenue above 120 million rubles. For foreign trade participants, the law removes part of the legal uncertainty within the Russian circuit, but it does not regulate the external side of the transaction: the willingness of a foreign counterparty to accept payment is determined by its own compliance and assessment of sanctions risk. Bitcoin and ether admitted to trading are volatile, and this is an independent risk for a contract with deferred payment.

Mandatory acceptance of the digital ruble creates a forced flow from bank balances into the Central Bank's obligation—exactly what everyone else avoids. The question of the next year and a half is not whether the circuits of different countries will align, but whether Russia will repeat the Chinese maneuver—accrue income or otherwise return the balance to banks. The answer will be visible in the dynamics of the deposit base by the end of 2027.

My conclusion: Russia is deliberately building a dual system where the public digital ruble serves domestic circulation, and private crypto assets serve foreign trade settlements. This is a pragmatic response to sanctions pressure, but it creates a risk of liquidity fragmentation: businesses will be forced to hold funds in two different circuits with different rules, which will increase operational costs. The key indicator of success is whether the Central Bank can retain balances in the banking system without resorting to forced yield, as China did.