Ukraine's crypto market and MiCA alignment

Wartime donations as the starting point

In the first days of the war, crypto donations reached the government's wallets at a pace the blockchain-analytics firm Elliptic put at about USD 30 million in the first four days. The Aid For Ukraine initiative, run by Everstake and Kuna with the Ministry of Digital Transformation, reports USD 64.3 million spent on equipment and supplies for the armed forces in its final report, and Elliptic's count of donations to pro-Ukrainian fundraisers, government wallets and NGOs included, had passed USD 212 million by May 2023, USD 83.3 million of it to official government wallets. Those figures come from an analytics firm and from the initiative's own reporting and are not audited, but the institutional lesson was absorbed at the top of the Ukrainian state: digital assets had become financial infrastructure and needed a legal framework.

The gap: a law that never entered into force

Ukraine had in fact passed a virtual-assets law days before 24 February 2022. It never entered into force: its operation was conditioned on tax-code amendments that were never adopted, leaving an active market without a dedicated regulatory framework: no licensing regime, and no path for banks to serve crypto businesses comfortably, even though tax law reached the income (the State Tax Service treats proceeds of crypto sales as taxable at the standard rates) and the anti-money-laundering law counts virtual-asset service providers among its reporting entities (Law No. 361-IX, Article 6). That is the gap the current legislation is built to close, and this time the draft is anchored on the EU's Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 (MiCA), the harmonised European framework for crypto-asset issuers and service providers, published in the Official Journal in June 2023 and now applicable across the Union.

Draft law 10225-d: MiCA as the template

On 3 September 2025 the Verkhovna Rada adopted draft law No. 10225-d in first reading, as the Rada's bill card records; contemporaneous reporting put the vote at 246 in favour. By its sponsors' own description, the bill was developed on the basis of MiCA: it establishes the legal regime for virtual assets and their circulation, defines the status of crypto exchanges and custodians, and mirrors MiCA's taxonomy of asset-referenced tokens, e-money tokens and other virtual assets. The second half of the bill is tax: profits from crypto-asset transactions are to be taxed on the same logic as securities, with loss carry-forward, and a one-year election allowing holders to sell assets acquired before the law takes effect and pay a flat 5 per cent income-tax rate on the proceeds, tied in the first-reading text to the 2026 tax year, with no deduction of costs and, the draft says expressly, no relief from anti-money-laundering obligations (10 per cent with the military levy, in the committee chair's description). Ukraine's securities regulator, the NSSMC, has positioned itself as the market regulator under the new framework.

Two caveats belong in every planning memo. First, as at 25 September 2026 the bill had passed first reading only and was being prepared for second reading, on the session agenda under Resolution No. 4958-IX of 1 September 2026; the text can change materially before final adoption, and the current status must be confirmed before any structuring decision relies on it. The NSSMC said on 16 September 2026 that it expects adoption in 2026 and has proposed that the law itself allocate supervision between the National Bank and the Commission. Second, adoption is not commencement: the 2022 law was passed by Parliament and signed by the President, and still never took effect because its entry into force was tied to tax-code amendments that did not follow. The difference this time is the accession process.

Why accession makes alignment the default

Ukraine has been an EU candidate country since June 2022, and its reform programme is financed and scored. The Ukraine Facility's third pillar pays for the alignment of Ukrainian law with the EU acquis, and disbursements under the Facility's first pillar are conditioned on delivery of the reform plan, as we described in How the EU funds Ukraine. The cadence is visible across the statute book: in May 2026 alone the Rada adopted a new EU-aligned public procurement law presented expressly as an accession step, and the law ratifying the agreements for the EU's EUR 90 billion Ukraine Support Loan for 2026 and 2027, of which EUR 30 billion is macroeconomic support and EUR 60 billion is for defence.

The virtual-assets law is not itself a milestone in the Ukraine Plan, whose financial-markets chapter is about banks, non-performing loans and the capital-markets regulator; the pull comes from the accession acquis, which Ukraine must adopt in full and which now includes MiCA, DORA on digital operational resilience and the EU AML package. In our assessment, Ukrainian law will therefore converge with MiCA; the open points are when, and in what state of completeness at each stage.

Reading it from the West: a familiar market taking shape

For European and Swiss crypto-asset service providers, a MiCA-shaped Ukrainian regime means the eventual market will look structurally familiar: comparable token taxonomy, comparable authorisation logic, and a supervisor still to be designated: the first-reading text gives the National Bank the functions it names and leaves the market regulator to be designated by the Cabinet in agreement with the National Bank (Article 4), a role the NSSMC has proposed for itself. Familiarity brings no passport: an EU CASP authorisation carries no rights in Ukraine of its own force. The first-reading text does offer providers incorporated in an EU member state, or in another state the regulator designates, a simplified Ukrainian authorisation whose terms the regulator would set (Article 62 of the draft law on virtual-asset markets), so market entry will run through whatever authorisation regime the final law establishes.

What can be done now is preparation with option value: monitoring the final text, mapping which services would require local authorisation, and above all running the sanctions and compliance analysis, because everything we set out in our update on the three compliance gates applies with extra force to crypto, where wallet-level screening, counterparty exposure to sanctioned exchanges and the travel rule sit on top of the usual perimeter.

Reading it from Kyiv: the case for an EU licence first

For Ukrainian crypto businesses the strategic logic may run the other way. A Ukrainian licence under the future law will serve the home market, but it will not open the EU: passporting comes with membership, and alignment alone does not bring it. A MiCA authorisation held by an EU-established entity, by contrast, opens the entire Union market today for the services it covers, on a notification to the home regulator (Articles 59 and 65 of MiCA), gives banks a recognised regulatory status to assess in place of an unregulated home base, and positions the business for the day the home market formalises.

The build is demanding: an entity with its registered office in the member state of authorisation, effective management in the Union and a resident director, governance and capital to MiCA standards, and an AML framework that withstands the enhanced scrutiny that, in our experience, Ukrainian-linked ownership tends to attract at onboarding, a risk-based judgement by each bank and not a legal consequence of Ukrainian ownership. It converts an unregulated home base into a European operating platform.

What this means for you

• Treat 10225-d as direction. First reading fixes the template; the text can still change, so confirm the current status before relying on any provision.
• Western CASPs: prepare the option. Map your services against the draft's taxonomy and licensing logic now, so entry analysis is ready when the law lands.
• Ukrainian crypto businesses: consider the EU licence route. MiCA authorisation through an EU-established entity delivers EU market access and a regulatory status banks recognise, independent of the domestic timetable.
• Run the crypto-specific compliance layer. Wallet screening, exposure to sanctioned venues and travel-rule readiness sit on top of the standard sanctions gates on all Ukraine-related work.
• Watch the tax transition. The draft's one-year election, a flat rate on the proceeds of selling pre-existing holdings, creates a planning moment for holders and platforms; the first-reading text still ties it to the 2026 tax year, so the period will move with the final text.

Isak Legal advises crypto and fintech businesses on EU and Swiss regulatory strategy, including MiCA authorisation planning, market-entry analysis and the sanctions and AML layer, and Ukrainian companies on reaching Western markets, partners and financing. See our Digital Assets and Ukraine: Investment and Reconstruction pages, or get in touch.

This client update is provided for general information only, reflects the position as at 26 September 2026 and does not constitute legal advice or create a lawyer-client relationship. Draft law 10225-d had passed first reading only as at that date; its content and status must be verified before use, and donation figures cited are analytics estimates and the initiative's own reporting. Ukrainian-law questions require Ukrainian counsel. For advice on a specific matter, please contact us.