Global state of crypto regulation 2025

The emergence of digital assets has introduced significant regulatory challenges, including investor protection, market integrity, and national security concerns. With global adoption spiking, the need for clear and comprehensive regulatory frameworks is more pressing than ever.

In this report, CryptoSlate aims to provide a detailed overview of how different countries are regulating digital assets, relying primarily on the Atlantic Council’s Crypto Regulation Tracker. The analysis covers legal statuses, regulatory categories, and regional highlights, offering insights for policymakers, investors, and crypto businesses. Additionally, given the global nature of blockchain technology, there is a growing call for harmonized regulations that can address cross-border transactions efficiently without stifling innovation.

The rise of digital assets has been marked by rapid adoption and volatility, necessitating regulatory responses to balance innovation with risk mitigation. This includes addressing issues like stablecoin oversight, DeFi protocols, and the potential for illicit financial activities.

The Atlantic Council’s tracker, last updated in March 2025, analyzes 60 countries, including G20 member states and those with high crypto adoption rates, as sourced from Chainalysis’ “Geography of Cryptocurrency 2023” report. By closely examining factors like how countries tax crypto-related transactions and the licensing requirements for exchanges and custodians, the report aims to give stakeholders the clarity they need to navigate an ever-evolving regulatory landscape.

The Crypto Regulation Tracker is an interactive database that categorizes countries based on the legal status of digital assets — legal (33 countries), partial ban (17 countries), and general ban (10 countries) — and examines regulatory categories such as taxation, AML/CFT, consumer protection, and licensing.

It covers regulated actors like issuers, exchanges, and miners and highlights stablecoin regulations. For instance, it notes that 70% of reviewed countries are making substantial regulatory changes in 2024, with new announcements from Australia, the UK, Brazil, and South Korea.

According to the Atlantic Council’s Crypto Regulation Tracker, the legal status of digital assets varies widely worldwide. Of the 60 countries analyzed, 33 have declared crypto fully legal, permitting all major activities such as trading, mining, and issuance.

Another 17 maintain partial bans, limiting certain activities — often banking services or initial coin offerings (ICOs) — while 10 impose general bans prohibiting nearly all forms of crypto engagement. Collectively, these 60 countries account for 98% of global GDP, underscoring the significance of their regulatory choices in shaping the global crypto landscape.

A key insight from the tracker is that 64.7% of the countries deemed “fully legal” are emerging or developing nations, predominantly in Asia and Africa. This information aligns with research from CoinGecko, which indicates that many of these regions have seen significant grassroots adoption driven by factors like remittance needs and a desire for alternative financial tools. At the same time, policymakers in these markets face unique challenges, such as limited resources for enforcement and a lack of established regulatory precedents.

In contrast, several advanced economies have also embraced crypto to varying degrees, with Europe standing out as a particularly open region. Out of the 41 European countries included, 39 recognize cryptocurrencies as legal. The sole exception is North Macedonia, which maintains a general ban, reflecting a stance that diverges from the broader European approach. This disparity illustrates how policy decisions can differ even among geographically close nations, often influenced by domestic economic priorities or political views on financial innovation.

The global trend leans toward acceptance, but the path to clear, consistent regulation remains uneven. Governments are compelled to weigh the potential benefits of blockchain technology — such as faster settlements and improved financial inclusion — against risks like money laundering or consumer harm.

The global crypto landscape may look fragmented at first glance, but several common threads run through the majority of regulatory frameworks. One of the most prominent themes is the emphasis on anti-money laundering (AML) and counter-terrorism financing (CFT) measures.

According to the Atlantic Council, most of the 60 countries it analyzes impose know-your-customer (KYC) requirements on exchanges, mandate suspicious activity reporting, and compel firms to comply with international standards set by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF).

The United States, the United Kingdom, and Singapore are frequently cited as leaders in applying AML/CFT protocols, leveraging robust financial intelligence units and well-funded regulatory agencies. However, emerging markets often struggle to match this level of enforcement due to limited resources, which can create vulnerabilities in global efforts to curb illicit finance.

Another prominent theme is the growing focus on consumer protection. Authorities in many jurisdictions recognize that crypto’s volatility and technical complexity can expose users to significant risks — from market manipulation to hacking incidents. As a result, regulators are increasingly implementing disclosure requirements, mandating risk warnings for prospective investors, and, in some cases, establishing compensation mechanisms. Japan is a prime example; its legal reforms following the Mt. Gox incident introduced stringent protections, requiring exchanges to maintain segregated customer accounts and even providing compensation in certain cases of asset loss.

Meanwhile, the EU’s forthcoming Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) regulation includes provisions designed to safeguard retail investors, with rules on transparent white papers for token issuers and standardized consumer disclosures. These measures reflect a growing sentiment that crypto markets need consistent oversight to maintain public trust.

Despite these shared concerns, the depth and scope of regulation can vary dramatically. The Atlantic Council’s data shows that only 19 out of the 60 countries studied have what can be described as comprehensive frameworks, covering four main regulatory categories: taxation, AML/CFT, consumer protection, and licensing.

Many of these comprehensive regimes appear in advanced economies like the United States, several EU member states, and Singapore. In contrast, only 13% of emerging markets have similarly thorough rules, reflecting differences in regulatory capacity, market maturity, and political will. Countries with partial bans, such as India, may allow individuals to hold and trade crypto but limit the involvement of banking institutions, effectively hampering liquidity and reducing integration with traditional financial systems.

Taxation

One of the clearest divergences in crypto oversight appears in taxation. Some countries define cryptocurrencies as a form of digital currency, while others classify them as commodities or securities. The US, for instance, treats crypto as property, meaning that capital gains tax applies upon sale or exchange. In Japan, payments made with cryptocurrencies were previously subject to a consumption tax, but lawmakers revised this approach to exempt digital assets used as payment.

AML/CFT

As mentioned, AML/CFT is a near-universal pillar of crypto regulation. Compliance typically includes KYC mandates, suspicious transaction reporting, and strict penalties for firms failing to meet these standards. The US, the UK, and Singapore maintain some of the most rigorous reporting thresholds, supported by well-developed financial intelligence units.

In emerging economies, however, enforcement can be patchy, creating potential loopholes. The FATF’s “Travel Rule,” which requires the transmission of customer data for crypto transactions above a certain threshold, has led to challenges in developing standardized data-sharing protocols across borders. This international fragmentation remains a major issue for regulators who want to tackle illicit finance without restricting legitimate market activity.

Consumer Protection

Consumer protection efforts typically include mandatory disclaimers, transparent fee structures, and, in some cases, insurance or compensation funds. Japan’s post-Mt. Gox policies exemplify a structured approach, requiring exchanges to segregate customer assets and maintain high security standards.

Likewise, MiCA in the EU includes provisions for investor protection, obliging issuers and service providers to present clear, accurate information on digital assets. In the United Kingdom, advertising rules have become stricter in recent years, with regulators calling for disclaimers that warn investors about potential losses.

Licensing

Finally, licensing frameworks showcase another area of considerable variation. Some jurisdictions, like Singapore and Malta, have well-defined licensing paths that cover exchanges, wallet providers, and payment token issuers. This clarity can attract crypto businesses seeking stable regulatory environments.

By contrast, the US maintains a patchwork system where federal agencies like the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) operate alongside state-level regulators. One of the most stringent examples is the New York BitLicense, which imposes specific capital requirements and rigorous oversight on crypto firms.

While such frameworks offer robust consumer protections and AML compliance, critics argue that high barriers to entry may stifle innovation.

North and South America

United States

The US treats crypto as legal but enforces a patchwork of regulations involving multiple federal and state agencies. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), and the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) each exert some authority. Ongoing debates over token classification—whether they are securities, commodities, or currencies—fuel uncertainty that can slow innovation. New York’s BitLicense has become a reference point for stringent state-level requirements, mandating capital reserves and detailed reporting.

Canada

Canada’s permissive stance toward crypto is characterized by clear tax guidelines and robust AML/CFT measures. While federal laws set overarching standards, the provinces—such as British Columbia and Alberta—sometimes adopt unique approaches to licensing. Exchanges must register with the Canadian Securities Administrators (CSA) or seek exemptions when offering specific products. This regulatory clarity has allowed Canada to maintain a thriving crypto ecosystem, highlighted by early approvals of Bitcoin exchange-traded funds (ETFs).

Brazil

Brazil officially recognizes crypto as an asset class and has shown a progressive attitude toward both stablecoins and central bank digital currencies (CBDCs). Its central bank, Banco Central do Brasil, is actively studying the potential for a digital real (CBDC), viewing blockchain technology as an opportunity for financial inclusion. According to the Atlantic Council, Brazil plans to refine its crypto legislation in line with FATF standards, which could reinforce its position as a regional leader.

Argentina

Argentina classifies crypto as legal but imposes a banking ban that prevents financial institutions from directly engaging in crypto-related transactions. This partial ban is intended to shield the national currency and the broader financial sector from volatility, yet individual ownership and peer-to-peer trading remain permitted. High inflation rates have driven many Argentine citizens to explore cryptocurrencies as a hedge, making the country a case study for crypto adoption under economic stress.

Europe

European Union (EU)

The EU has positioned itself at the forefront of crypto regulation with the forthcoming Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) framework, set to take effect in January 2025. MiCA aims to unify rules on issuance, trading, and custody of digital assets across member states, potentially setting a global benchmark. It addresses token transparency, stablecoin governance, and investor protection standards, fostering a level playing field for crypto businesses operating in multiple EU countries.

United Kingdom (UK)

Post-Brexit, the UK is developing its own approach, balancing consumer protection and financial stability. Regulatory initiatives include the Financial Conduct Authority’s (FCA) guidelines on crypto advertising and a regulatory sandbox designed to encourage innovation. While the UK is no longer bound by EU directives, it often mirrors or surpasses European standards, offering strong oversight for exchanges and wallet providers.

Germany

Germany recognizes Bitcoin as a “unit of account,” allowing for broader legal acceptance. Crypto gains are often tax-free if held beyond a certain period (generally one year). Exchanges must obtain a Federal Financial Supervisory Authority (BaFin) license to ensure clear operational rules. This environment has spurred steady growth in crypto investments, with local fintech startups benefiting from Germany’s regulatory clarity.

Russia

Russia permits individual ownership and trading of cryptocurrencies but restricts financial institutions and government entities from engaging in crypto activities. This partial ban stems from concerns over capital flight and illicit finance. Nonetheless, the Russian government has shown a willingness to explore digital asset use cases, particularly in cross-border transactions, to mitigate sanction impacts.

Asia & Oceania

Japan

Japan is widely viewed as a pioneer in crypto regulation, having introduced robust frameworks after the Mt. Gox collapse. Exchanges must register with the Financial Services Agency (FSA), follow strict AML/CFT protocols, and maintain segregated customer accounts. Tax guidelines are well-defined: crypto gains are generally treated as income, while payment-based usage is exempt from consumption tax. This consumer-focused approach has helped Japan maintain a stable market environment.

South Korea

South Korea adopts a “legal but cautious” stance, permitting crypto trading while banning initial coin offerings (ICOs). Exchanges must comply with stringent reporting requirements and partner with approved banks to verify customer identities. Regulatory authorities have increasingly scrutinized the DeFi and stablecoin sectors to protect retail investors from potential market manipulation and fraud.

Australia

Australia provides clear tax guidance and aligns its exchange regulations with global AML/CFT standards. The Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (AUSTRAC) oversees compliance, ensuring platforms implement KYC procedures. The Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) is also exploring CBDC opportunities, suggesting the country might expand its leadership role in digital currency development.

India

India recognizes crypto as legal but imposes high transaction taxes—30% on gains plus a 1% tax deducted at source on each sale. A partial ban persists in the banking sector, where financial institutions are discouraged from offering crypto-related services. The central government continues to deliberate on more comprehensive legislation, leaving the market uncertain. India’s large population and growing fintech ecosystem contribute to significant trading volumes.

Africa

South Africa

South Africa encourages blockchain experimentation while providing tax guidance for crypto activities. The South African Reserve Bank has explored wholesale CBDC projects, reflecting an openness to innovation. Local exchanges must comply with KYC/AML rules, which help integrate crypto into the broader financial system. This measured approach has led to steady growth, with many South Africans using crypto for remittances and investments.

Nigeria

Nigeria has one of the world’s highest crypto adoption rates—partly driven by remittance costs and local currency volatility. However, the Central Bank of Nigeria has oscillated between restrictive measures, such as barring banks from servicing crypto firms, and more accommodative stances. This uncertainty complicates the landscape for exchanges and users, although peer-to-peer trading remains robust.

When analyzing global crypto adoption and regulation, a few markets stand out due to their high trading volumes, robust ecosystems, and influential policies.

United States

The United States permits crypto activities but lacks a unified federal framework, resulting in a patchwork of regulations. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), and Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) all exert authority, yet their mandates can overlap. SEC enforcement actions — such as those against Coinbase — highlight ongoing debates about whether certain tokens qualify as securities. State-level policies add complexity; New York’s BitLicense imposes rigorous requirements like capital reserves and detailed reporting. This multi-tiered environment can deter startups seeking regulatory clarity, although major crypto firms still consider the US a crucial market.

European Union (Germany/France)

The EU has taken significant steps to harmonize rules through the forthcoming Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) framework, set to become effective in January 2025. MiCA is expected to streamline licensing, disclosure, and consumer protection across member states. Germany, for example, already recognizes Bitcoin as a “unit of account,” and licensed exchanges are overseen by the Federal Financial Supervisory Authority (BaFin). France has also explored stablecoin regulations, reflecting a generally supportive stance toward innovative financial technologies. This coordinated approach aims to promote market growth while establishing robust safeguards.

Japan

Japan has been a crypto pioneer since legalizing certain exchanges in 2017. The country’s strict regulatory regime emerged in response to major incidents like Mt. Gox, leading to strong consumer protections and mandatory licensing via the Financial Services Agency (FSA). Exchanges must maintain segregated accounts and adhere to stringent security protocols. Trading profits are taxed as income, although transactions used for payments are exempt from consumption tax. This structured ecosystem provides a model for other jurisdictions seeking to protect investors while encouraging adoption.

India

India’s regulatory stance has evolved rapidly. Historical bans on banking services were lifted, yet the current environment imposes high tax burdens—30% on gains plus a 1% tax deducted at source on every sale—and keeps a partial ban on bank involvement with crypto firms. These measures aim to control speculation and capital outflow but also create uncertainty. The central government continues to deliberate on a more comprehensive framework, and future decisions could either normalize crypto activity or restrict it further.

China

China maintains a general ban on digital assets trading and initial coin offerings, influenced by concerns over capital flight and financial instability. However, the Chinese government is heavily invested in developing its central bank digital currency (CBDC), the digital yuan (e-CNY). This duality illustrates China’s preference for state-controlled digital finance rather than decentralized crypto networks. The country’s regulatory stance reverberates globally, given China’s historical role in mining and its large share of overall trading volume before the clampdown.

The global legal status of digital assets is far from uniform. Data shows that 33 of 60 assessed countries deem crypto fully legal, 17 enforce partial bans, and 10 implement general bans. This spectrum illustrates how different governments weigh innovation against risk mitigation.

On one side, jurisdictions like the European Union move toward comprehensive frameworks — exemplified by the upcoming Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) regulation — while nations like China adhere to broad prohibitions but actively develop central bank digital currencies (CBDCs).

Common regulatory goals include preventing illicit finance, safeguarding consumers, and establishing clear tax rules. However, each country’s capacity, economic conditions, and political climate shape the specifics. As a result, businesses and investors must navigate a complex global environment, adapting to localized licensing requirements and varying enforcement levels.