Two circuits instead of one: how the new digital currency law divided Russia's payment space
The global financial system is undergoing a tectonic shift, and Russia finds itself at the epicenter of this process. The law "On Digital Currency and Digital Rights," signed on August 4, is not just another regulatory act but a strategic manifesto laying the foundation for the coexistence of two fundamentally different payment circuits: a public one based on the digital ruble, and a private one built on cryptocurrencies. This decision sets Moscow apart amid global trends, where the US and Europe are moving along entirely different paths.
The key fork around which the entire new law is built is the question of the "balance": who holds the obligation at the moment of settlement and, accordingly, who benefits from the temporary lag between the debiting and crediting of funds. In the traditional banking system, this balance is a source of liquidity and profit, the "raw material" for lending. Russia is choosing a model where, domestically, the balance remains with the Central Bank, ensuring full traceability, while externally, it moves into decentralized networks, where the issuer and the bank merely observe the transaction.
What exactly changes from September 1, 2026
The law takes effect in stages, and its framework looks as follows. From September 1, 2026, the main regime is launched, and by July 1, 2027, mandatory registration of crypto exchanges in the Bank of Russia registry is introduced. A new category of professional participants emerges—"digital depositories"—which will be responsible for asset accounting and compensation for damages in the event of unauthorized debits. Crypto exchangers with equity capital of at least 15 million rubles gain legal status.
Clear frameworks are established for investors: only assets with a capitalization above 5 trillion rubles and an average daily turnover exceeding 1 trillion rubles are admitted to trading—in practice, this means bitcoin and ether. Non-qualified investors receive a limit of 300 thousand rubles per year per intermediary and are required to undergo testing. Importantly, holding cryptocurrency outside exchanges is not prohibited, and ownership rights are recognized for the holder of the access key.
Two circuits: the logic of separation
Domestic settlements remain the exclusive prerogative of the digital ruble—a state currency mandatory for acceptance from September 1. Foreign economic activity, by contrast, legalizes the circulation of private global assets. These are not two interfaces of one system but two different data models: in one, the record is created by the platform operator; in the other, by the network, with the bank merely reconciling the data. The sanctions context here is obvious: correspondent channels have become difficult to navigate, and cryptocurrency is the only working bridge for international settlements.
The dynamics of the global market are telling. While the US has banned retail CBDC until 2030, and Europe is only designing a digital euro with zero yield, China is recapitalizing the digital yuan by converting it into an interest-bearing deposit. India and Brazil, by contrast, are winding down their projects due to privacy concerns. Russia, meanwhile, is charting its own course, and the key question is not whether the circuits of different countries will mirror each other, but whether Moscow will opt for the Chinese maneuver and return the balance to banks through yield.
My conclusion: the law creates a smart architecture, but its success will depend on one thing—whether the Central Bank can maintain a balance between total traceability of domestic payments and the necessary flexibility of external ones. We will see the answer in the dynamics of the deposit base by the end of 2027: if balances begin to migrate en masse into the digital ruble, the model will work; if not, a new round of regulatory race awaits us.