Crypto news

International transfers continue to be one of the most painful points of the financial system. Sending $200 abroad costs on average 6.4% of the amount, while the banking channel eats up almost 15%. At the same time, the payment order itself reaches the receiving bank in ten minutes—all the remaining delay and costs arise after delivery. Over the past month, five different approaches have tried to close this gap.

Global Context: The Race for Digital Assets

Last week, on August 4, the President of Russia signed the law "On Digital Currency and Digital Rights." Three weeks earlier, the U.S. legislatively banned its own digital dollar, Europe entered final negotiations on the digital euro, the Bank for International Settlements conducted its first real-money settlements in the Agorá project, and Mastercard closed a deal to acquire a stablecoin company. All five are answering one question, and the Russian answer differs in one way: only here is the state building two payment rails simultaneously and regulating them differently.

The Dispute Is Not About Technology, but About Control

The bottleneck is not message transmission: according to SWIFT statistics, three out of four payments reach the receiving bank in ten minutes. Time and money are consumed by the "last mile"—compliance checks, reconciliation, and crediting at the local bank. The real subject of dispute is whose obligation you hold in your hands at the moment of settlement: the central bank's, a commercial bank's, a private issuing company's, or a payment network's. This determines whom 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.

Mikhail Kulakov, lead engineer-analyst of the Blockchain direction at DiSoft, explains: the question "whose obligation is this" is a question of where the primary record is kept and who has the right to change it. A central bank's obligation lives on the regulator's platform, a bank's own obligation lives in its accounting core, and a token issuer's obligation lives in a third-party 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 aligning these records with each other, not a delay in data transmission.

What the Russian Law Introduces

The law takes effect on September 1, 2026, with mandatory registration of crypto exchanges in the Bank of Russia registry from July 1, 2027, and some 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 unauthorized debits. Crypto exchanges with own funds of at least 15 million rubles are legalized. The criteria for admitting assets to trading are enshrined in the law itself: market capitalization above 5 trillion rubles, average daily turnover above 1 trillion rubles, and a trading history of at least five years—all averaged over two years. Bitcoin and ether currently meet these criteria. For non-qualified investors, a limit of 300,000 rubles per year per intermediary and mandatory testing are established.

The provision that will affect practice earlier than others is settlements under foreign trade contracts. It has been operating since September 2024 in an experimental mode by the Bank of Russia, and the new law makes it permanent. Domestic payments in cryptocurrency remain prohibited. Not only custodial wallets are allowed, but also self-custody ones; withdrawals exceeding 100,000 rubles to an external address are subject to a 48-hour delay—this 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 ownership 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 mere fact of ownership is not explicitly established—except for state and municipal employees. 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 due by April 30. The holding-period exemption applicable to certain types of property does not apply to digital currency, according to Finance Ministry clarifications. From July 1, 2027, banks are required to refuse transfers to unlicensed crypto services—the channel for funding foreign platforms through Russian banks is closed.

Two Rails Instead of One

Domestically, from September 1, mandatory acceptance of the digital ruble begins—a state retail currency that the U.S. has legislatively rejected until the end of 2030 and that Europe is still only designing. Externally, the circulation of private global assets is legalized. Both instruments are used simultaneously but separated by purpose: domestically—only the public rail, externally—only the private one. The logic of 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—while simultaneously raising the same privacy question that led the U.S. to abandon the retail model. Externally, an asset issued by none of the transaction participants is used—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 provision: the issue is not the transfer fee, but the availability of the channel itself.

The combination of public and private rails is not unique in itself—China, the UAE, and India do the same. The distinctiveness 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 central bank projects in BRICS are built on centralized platforms where the distributed ledger is used selectively. Stablecoins live in the opposite paradigm—public networks, an open record book, and no single operator. Therefore, the two rails 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 Takeaway

The American framework took shape over a year. The GENIUS Act (July 2025) requires full backing of stablecoins with liquid assets and explicitly prohibits paying holders income on 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 being 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 its acquisition of BVNK on August 3, with the announced March price of up to $1.8 billion, including about $300 million in contingent payments. The asset's value is largely regulatory: BVNK obtained a MiCA license in Malta in February 2026, 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 while retaining the client and the rules: they do not need the balance; they earn on the flow. Stablecoins' share of cross-border retail payments in 2025 was 0.31%.

The only one to report real-money settlements 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 same bank's obligation, the ledger handles atomicity and synchronization, and no data migration is required, Kulakov explains. But compliance checks, sanctions screening, and the resolution of disputed transactions remained outside the scope—and these are precisely what constitutes the "last mile"—so 80 seconds remains a characteristic of the settlement layer, not of the end-to-end payment.

Country trajectories are diverging. 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 digital rupee in circulation declined for the first time by 24% in FY2025/26, and Brazil in November 2025 shut down the Drex platform, admitting that the technology failed to ensure privacy and security. The digital ruble looks modest—as of July 1, over 25 million digital rubles were in circulation, about $320,000 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 some legal uncertainty within the Russian framework, 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, which is an independent risk for contracts with deferred payment. Mandatory acceptance of the digital ruble creates a forced flow from bank balances into a central bank obligation—exactly what everyone else is avoiding. The question for the next year and a half is not whether the rails of different countries will connect, but whether Russia will repeat the Chinese maneuver—accrue yield 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: the Russian law is not just cryptocurrency regulation, but a strategic fork in the road: it simultaneously builds a state rail for internal control and legalizes a private one for external maneuver. The model's success will depend not on technology, but on whether the regulator can maintain a balance between traceability and competitiveness in the global market.