STATE OF LEGAL REGULATION ENSURING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF STATE POLICY ON THE DEVELOPMENT AND FUNCTIONING OF THE VIRTUAL ASSETS MARKET IN THE USA

Abstract

The article is devoted to clarifying the current state of legal regulation
governing the implementation of state policy in relation to the development and
functioning of the virtual asset market in the United States. At present, the
principal legal instruments regulating this sector are the Internal Revenue Code
and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021 (formally: An Act to
Authorize Funds for Federal-Aid Highways, Highway Safety Programmes, and
Transit Programmes, and for Other Purposes). These legislative instruments form
the basis upon which United States public administration bodies interpret
cryptocurrencies and other virtual assets not as legal tender, but as property –
that is, as electronically stored assets which may be acquired, disposed of, owned,
transferred, and exchanged. Nonetheless, as of late April 2025, the United States
lacks a comprehensive federal statutory framework that governs the legal status
of non-fungible tokens (NFTs), decentralised finance (DeFi) platforms, and
stablecoins. This regulatory lacuna persists despite a clear demonstration of
political will at the executive level, most notably articulated in Executive Order
14178 of 23 January 2025, which outlines the President’s commitment to the
development of a unified policy approach to virtual assets. However, no draft
federal law has yet been introduced that would offer a consolidated legal
definition of virtual assets – including their classification and typology – the legal
foundations for the operation and evolution of the virtual asset market, or the
delineation of powers between federal and state regulators tasked with enforcing
public policy in this domain. At the time of writing, two federal bills (the GENIUS
Act and the STABLE Act) are under consideration in the United States Congress.
These legislative proposals focus on the regulation and oversight of stablecoin-
related transactions and operations. Nevertheless, they fall short of resolving the
broader problems of legal uncertainty regarding both the overarching legal
regime applicable to the virtual asset market and the regulatory treatment of
stablecoins in particular. In this regard, it is concluded that, to date, the future
trajectory of legal reform intended to ensure the implementation of state policy
on the development and regulation of the virtual asset market in the United States
remains poorly defined and institutionally fragmented.