Models of legal regulation of cryptocurrencies in the USA: prospects for adaptation in Ukraine

This article offers a comparative analysis of the models for legal regulation of virtual assets in the United States, classified according to the government body that exercises such regulation, and proposes ways to adapt these mechanisms to the Ukrainian legal system. The methodological basis of the study combines functional-legal and system-structural approaches, supplemented by comparative and content analysis of U.S. federal and state legislation, landmark case law (SEC v. Ripple, SEC v. Coinbase, SEC v. Binance), and the positions of the SEC, CFTC, and FinCEN. The author argues that the American model is shaped by a synthesis of “regulation by enforcement,” in which judicial precedents set standards for subsequent regulation and law enforcement, and “regulation by legislation,” in which the refined practice is codified and introduces new regulatory approaches. The latter aspect is embodied in the draft bills H.R. 4763 Financial Innovation and Technology Act and S. 394 GENIUS Act. The absence of a unified approach to classifying virtual assets is shown to generate jurisdictional conflict among U.S. agencies and to foster regulatory arbitrage, whereby companies choose jurisdictions that present the least regulatory resistance. The second part of the study addresses the Ukrainian context, emphasizing that although the Law of Ukraine “On Virtual Assets” was adopted in 2022, its implementation is impossible without appropriate tax provisions and without a clear normative delineation of state bodies responsible for oversight of this asset class. Through analysis of the NCSCFR’s Tax Matrix and draft bill No. 10225-d, the author demonstrates how Ukraine can avoid U.S.-style fragmentation: a clear functional allocation of oversight is proposed whereby (i) the National Bank of Ukraine regulates stablecoins, (ii) the National Commission on Securities and Stock Market supervises investment tokens, (iii) the Ministry of Digital Transformation maintains the register of virtual-asset service providers and sets cybersecurity standards for them, and (iv) the State Financial Monitoring Service oversees anti-money-laundering compliance. The novelty of the research lies in identifying the vectors of American virtual-asset regulation and substantiating the possibility of adapting them to Ukraine through a functional classification of the asset type. The practical significance lies in the provision of concrete recommendations for regulatory action.