2024: Year in regulation for digital assets

Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

2024 was a year of momentous events. The Labour Party swept to a landmark victory in the United Kingdom general election, ending 14 years of tumultuous Tory rule; Spain cruised to victory in the UEFA Euros competition (that’s soccer, for U.S. readers); after surviving two assassination attempts, Donald Trump comfortably won a second term as United States President; and Celine Dion made a remarkable return from illness to belt out ‘Hymne à l’amour’ from halfway up the Eiffel Tower, to open the Paris Olympics.

While such headline-grabbing moments will likely provide lasting impressions of the year for many, those invested or interested in the blockchain space also had plenty of notable developments to chew on, particularly in the regulatory and legislative realm.

In Europe, the European Union’s (EU) landmark digital asset regulatory framework began to come into force, and its neighbor, the U.K., progressed legislation to classify digital assets as property under the law, while in Asia, China continued to crack down on digital asset money laundering as South Korea ushered in a comprehensive regulatory regime for digital asset firms and users.

The U.S., by contrast, was notable for its lack of federal progress in blockchain regulation, partly due to its lack of political consensus on just about anything, leaving individual states to take matters into their own hands. However, the country did see more developments in enforcement, with several high-profile digital asset-related lawsuits and criminal cases coming to fruition, not least Terraform Labs and Onecoin, as well as a record hauls from fines and penalties.

In terms of global trends, possibly the most significant of the year was a concerted push by authorities and lawmakers to regulate stablecoins. This sub-category of digital assets seemed to be almost uniformly top of legislative priority lists around the globe, making it as good a place as any to start a 2024 regulatory roundup.

Stablecoin regulation a priority

Stablecoins, such as Tether (USDT) and USDC, differ from speculative tokens in that their value is pegged 1:1 to a more “stable” asset, typically fiat currency. In theory, they provide the digital asset space with a less volatile alternative, and for this reason, stablecoins abound as a medium of exchange, a store of value, a trading asset and a way to make payments.

Unfortunately, their utility has led to a situation where the continued functioning of the digital asset space is often over-reliant on stablecoins retaining their value. So, to ensure that they are living up to their promises of stability, lawmakers around the globe have been increasing the focus on stablecoin regulation.

First off the mark was Singapore, where on April 19 this year, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) clarified, in a revised FAQs on the Payment Services Act, that it had finalized the framework for MAS-regulated stablecoins. Stablecoin issuers regulated under the framework—those that issue coins pegged to the Singapore Dollar or any G10 currency and which are issued in Singapore—would henceforth be subject to additional regulatory requirements, including licensing requirements, ensuring robust consumer protections, and reserve management.

Next up was the EU—no slouch when it comes to blockchain legislation—whose landmark Markets in Crypto Assets Regulation (MiCAR) began to come into force at the end of June, bringing several new obligations for issuers of asset-referenced tokens (ARTs) and e-money tokens (EMTs); the former being stablecoins that purport to maintain a stable value by referencing another value or right, the latter digital assets designed to maintain a stable value by reference to one currency.

The new requirements included issuers having to be authorized by the Central Bank and to publish a white paper containing information on the relevant token for investors; conduct and governance requirements around marketing, disclosure of information, and dealing with conflicts of interest; and prudential requirements to ensure sufficient liquidity and the ability to meet redemption requests.

Taking the lead from these more advanced regulatory efforts, other nations and jurisdictions began to work on their plans for stablecoin—to varying degrees of success.

On July 17, the Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA) and the Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau (FSTB) published the conclusions to their December 2023 consultation paper on a proposed regulatory regime for stablecoin issuers in Hong Kong. Key proposals that received support included implementing a licensing regime for stablecoins that reference one or more fiat currencies and a mandate that the value of the reserve assets backing such a token must always be at least equal to the par value of the token.

It remains unclear exactly when these proposals may be implemented, but with the backing of the HKMA, the FSTB, and the consultation respondents, stablecoin regulation in Hong Kong it likely not far off.

Meanwhile, on April 15, the U.K.’s Economic Secretary Bim Afolami also announced plans to introduce new laws to regulate the issuance and usage of stablecoins. Afolami mooted June or July for the incoming legislation, but as those months came and went, the only change was one in administration, not law, with the Labour party sweeping to a landslide victory in July’s general election. Since then, it’s been quiet on the stablecoin front, but certain market players are convinced new legislation will come sooner rather than later in the U.K.

The Economic Secretary didn’t expand on what the proposed stablecoin regulation would look like. Still, it will almost certainly build on the foundation laid down by the passage last June of the Financial Services and Markets Act (FSMA) 2023, which allowed for stablecoins and digital assets to be treated as regulated activities in the U.K. It will also have some influence from a Bank of England (BoE) discussion paper and a Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) discussion paper, both published November 2023.

Regulation built on these papers would likely mandate, amongst other measures, issuers to fully back stablecoins with deposits at the BoE, maintaining adequate capital to withstand financial shocks, implementing robust risk management practices, a requirement for stablecoins to consistently maintain their value relative to the designated reference currency, and a necessity for holders to be able to promptly redeem their value at par—of course, until an official stablecoin bill reaches U.K. parliament this is purely speculation.

Much like the U.K.’s efforts hit a wall in the lead-up to a momentous election, U.S. attempts at stablecoin regulation also found themselves casualties of election-year politicking.

On April 17, Senators Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) and Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) released a draft of their Lummis-Gillibrand Payment Stablecoin Act of 2024. The bill would prohibit so-called ‘algorithmic stablecoins’ and require stablecoin reserve assets to be held on a 1:1 cash or cash-equivalent basis—much like measures introduced in the EU and proposed in the U.K.

A similar bill called the Clarity for Payment Stablecoins Act of 2023, was introduced in the House of Representatives. If enacted, it would create a regulatory framework for the issuance and oversight of payment stablecoins, including defining stablecoins, mandating issuers to obtain licenses from state regulators, reporting requirements for issuers, requiring issuers to maintain reserves equal to the value of the stablecoins in circulation, and imposing consumer protections that require stablecoin issuers to disclose relevant information about the stablecoin, such as underlying assets, reserve holdings, and any potential risks.

However, in the runup to the November election, both bills became stuck in the quagmire of partisan politics, and since the election, in the even deeper bog of a lame duck Congress. Some lawmakers remained optimistic that such a bill could be agreed upon in the foreseeable future. However, as the end of the year looms ever closer, it appears clear that stablecoin legislation—or any substantial new bill for that matter—will have to wait until the new Congress and President are sworn in, come January 2025.

Due to such legislative stalemates at the federal level, several U.S. states decided they had had enough of waiting for Washington D.C. to get its act together and ploughed ahead with their own regulatory efforts in 2024.

US states take the lead

In January, the U.S. State Senate of Virginia introduced legislation addressing digital asset mining and transactions, along with their tax treatment. The legislation would establish rights for digital asset miners and validators, provide tax incentives for purchasing goods and services with digital assets, and create a workgroup dedicated to studying the overall digital asset ecosystem and make recommendations to foster the sector’s expansion.

The Virginia House of Delegates passed the bill on March 4, with 97 members in favor, one against and two abstaining. The new working group was subsequently given a deadline of November 1 to conclude all of its studies related to the digital asset ecosystem and share its recommendations “no later than the first day of the 2025 Regular Session of the General Assembly.”

A few months later, the state’s immediate neighbor to the south, North Carolina, jumped on the blockchain legislation bandwagon, passing a bill banning central bank digital currency (CBDC) in the state. The bill prevents state agencies and courts from accepting payment using CBDC and bans them from participating in CBDC tests “by any Federal Reserve branch.”

It passed in an assembly vote of 109–4 in the House after an equally unambiguous 39–5 vote in the Senate the day before. But the passage wasn’t entirely smooth sailing; in an echo of federal partisan bickering, the state’s Democratic Governor Roy Cooper attempted to veto the bill, with his veto eventually being overturned in August.

In October, Pennsylvania also joined the regulatory party. A bipartisan bill aimed at providing greater regulatory clarity for digital assets and the 1.5 million residents of the state who currently invest in them passed a Pennsylvania House of Representatives vote in a resounding 176-26 vote. House Bill 2481, known as the “Bitcoin Rights Bill,” protects residents’ rights to self-custody digital assets, enables using Bitcoin as a legal form of payment, and outlines taxation rules for Bitcoin transactions.

While the individual states of the U.S. attempted to move the country’s dial on blockchain regulation, another ‘union of states’ across the Atlantic was showing how it’s done on a somewhat grander scale.

EU framework begins to take effect

The key regulatory change of 2024 in the digital asset space was arguably the stablecoin provisions of the EU’s landmark MiCAR coming into force at the end of June, yet this wasn’t the only development for blockchain in the EU.

Regulatory progress kicked off early in the year, with January heralding provisional agreement from EU policymakers on parts of a broad anti-money laundering package that would impact the digital asset space, including self-hosted wallets, where the owner controls the private keys to their digital assets.

The ‘Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism (AML) Act‘ is part of an ongoing effort to combat sanctions evasion, terrorist financing, and money laundering, which was given extra impetus in light of the Israel-Palestine conflict and revelations about Hamas’ financing through digital assets. The bill is not part of MiCAR but rather a broader effort to curb money laundering and terrorist financing in the bloc.

The new legislation will impact “crypto asset managers,” including crypto asset service providers (CASPs), such as centralized digital asset exchanges registered under MiCAR. The package will require CASPs to apply the same rules as banks to verify their customers’ identities and data, as well as add “measures to mitigate risks in relation to transactions with self-hosted wallets.”

In addition, CASPs will have to conduct enhanced due diligence on customers using a self-hosted wallet for transactions over €1,000 ($1,088), including verifying identity, monitoring transactions and requesting more information about senders and receivers.

The AML bill, which comes into force on December 30, also ushers in a new EU supervisory authority—the Anti-Money Laundering Authority (AMLA)—to oversee the digital asset sector. It will be established in Frankfurt and tasked with directly supervising the riskiest financial entities, intervening in case of supervisory failures, and acting as a central hub and mediator for supervisors.

Another significant development was the European Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties and Justice (LIBE) overwhelmingly voting to endorse the latest digital euro report, backing the European Central Bank’s (ECB) proposed digital euro. The draft legislation made a proposed CBDC legal tender and was passed in February by a vote of 48 in favor with only six against (and seven abstentions), taking the bloc one step closer to a CBDC. However, the final decision on the digital euro won’t be made until late 2025.

Towards the end of the year, the most significant regulatory move was the EU’s top financial markets watchdog recommending updates to several aspects of the MiCAR framework.

On October 16, the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) released an official opinion on MiCAR, encouraging the European Commission (EC)—the primary executive arm of the EU—to update the Regulatory Technical Standards (RTS) of MiCAR to require applicant CASPs to provide the results of an external cybersecurity audit.

This audit would include an assessment of “the good repute” of the CASP’s management body and checks regarding the absence of penalties in areas other than commercial law, insolvency law, financial services law, anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing, fraud or professional liability—i.e. outside of the areas usually checked for penalties. 

ESMA stated that the enhanced RTS aims to ensure a “thorough entry point assessment” for applicant CASPs and financial entities intending to offer digital asset services in the EU.

These recommended amendments come as the bloc and market prepare for the implementation of the full MiCAR framework, which, along with the AML bill, will come into force on December 30.

Digital assets as property in the U.K.

Across the channel, the blockchain talking point of the year was the progression of a U.K. Law Commission recommendation that digital assets be treated as property under U.K. law.

On July 30, the U.K. Law Commission—a statutory independent body that keeps the law of England and Wales under review and recommends reform—published a supplemental “final report” highlighting the inadequacy of the current categorization of personal property and its legal implications on digital assets. In August, it followed this up with a report advocating for legal reforms to better account for the unique features of digital assets.

The current issue, concluded the Commission, is that U.K. law is somewhat ambiguous regarding digital assets and property rights. Specifically, the laws of England and Wales categorize personal property into two main types: things in possession, i.e., tangible property; and things in action, i.e., intangible property, such as debts or rights. Digital assets can possess both qualities or neither, and the resulting confusion can hinder dispute resolution in court proceedings. Hence why the Commission stated that “there are many different types of digital assets, not all of which will be capable of being things to which personal property rights can relate.”

It proposed introducing a “third category” to ensure that property rights related to digital assets are clear and enforceable. To achieve this, it recommended a ‘Property Bill‘ that would clarify that “a thing (including a thing that is digital or electronic in nature) is not prevented from being the object of personal property rights merely because it is neither— (a) a thing in possession, nor (b) a thing in action.”

This bill would allow digital assets to be considered property, whether or not they fit into either of the two existing categories, but leaves it to “common law development”—i.e. the courts—to develop the third category for digital assets.

In September, the U.K. government took up this recommendation, introducing a bill to create a new category of personal property for digital assets and non-fungible tokens (NFTs). The bill now sits in the House of Lords—the upper house of the U.K. parliament—which has issued a call for evidence from interested parties.

The House of Lords can make amendments based on the feedback it receives, but as the bill has the House of Commons and Law Commission’s backing, it will likely be passed into law next year, unchanged or with only minor amendments.

Around the world in 80 bills—almost

Europe and the U.S. may have dominated the headlines regarding digital asset legislation—or lack thereof in the latter’s case—but 2024 was a busy year.

Kicking off this roundup with the world’s second-largest economy—by GDP—in August, China’s supreme court and public prosecutor revised their interpretation of the country’s AML laws to recognize “virtual asset” transactions. The newly revised interpretation added that when criminal proceeds are transferred or converted through digital asset transactions or financial asset exchanges, it may be found to be otherwise “covering up or concealing the source and nature of criminal proceeds and their benefits by other means.”

The punishment for those found to have violated the AML laws ranges from a minimum of 10,000 Chinese yuan ($1,400) to 200,000 yuan ($28,000) and jail terms of between five and 10 years for more severe offenders.

Digital asset transactions and exchanges have been banned in China since 2021, a policy that appears to be staying the same for a while. However, the country seems to be allowing Hong Kong to become a testing ground, of sorts, for the embracing of blockchain technology.

In August, the Special Administrative Region—where the trading of digital assets is not prohibited—announced plans to introduce enhanced digital asset regulations within the next 18 months. The Hong Kong government aims to improve the supervision and enforcement of legislation related to digital asset financial products, including stablecoins, and sandbox tests have already been carried out to establish the best form this impending legislation should take.

In contrast to the Chinese and Hong Kong approach, fellow Asian powerhouse India has been essentially a free-for-all when it comes to digital assets, with currently no regulation governing the space. This is possibly one of the reasons the country has rocketed to the top of “global crypto adoption.”

In August, the Indian Ministry of Finance revealed it had no immediate plans to regulate the sale and purchase of digital assets. However, in a seemingly contradictory signal, later that same month, the country’s Department of Economic Affairs (DEA) revealed that it was preparing to release a consultation paper on digital asset legislation, inviting stakeholders’ feedback on how to regulate digital assets.

It remains to be seen which road this important digital asset market will go down in 2025, whether towards regulation or continuing its current hands-off approach.

Sticking with Asia, a more decisive move came from South Korea, as its first digital asset regulatory framework came into force in July. Under the framework known as the Virtual Asset User Protection Act, financial regulators now have the authority to supervise, inspect, and sanction digital asset trading platforms, enforce the new safeguard on users’ deposits and digital assets, and curb unfair trading practices such as price manipulation.

Specific provisions of the bill include requiring digital asset firms to monitor and report suspicious transactions; service providers in South Korea being legally obligated to safe keep at least 80% of user digital asset deposits in cold storage, separate from their own funds; and digital asset service providers having to maintain a surveillance system for suspicious transactions at all times, and immediately report suspicious trading activities to the country’s finance sector watchdog, the Financial Supervisory Service (FSS).

Moving this regulatory whistlestop tour southwards, down in the antipodes, New Zealand’s Minister of Revenue Simon Watts introduced a new bill titled ‘Taxation (Annual Rates for 2024–25, Emergency Response, and Remedial Measures)’ on August 26. In it, he proposed the implementation of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD’s) Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework (CARF).

The OECD—an intergovernmental policy forum and standard-setting body—approved the CARF in 2022 as a standard to help “fight against international tax evasion” and “ensure that the tax transparency architecture remains up-to-date and effective,” the body said at the time. The measure aims to prevent tax evasion by ensuring firms provide information on transactions in digital assets.

According to a new tax policy document released by the New Zealand Inland Revenue Service in August, it appears the country plans to implement CARF by April 2026. In other words, digital asset service providers in the country will have to collect information on users’ transactions starting April 1, 2026.

Heading northwards, the largest digital asset market in Africa, Nigeria, saw a rollercoaster of developments in digital asset legislation in 2024.

After starting the year with the reversal of a law restricting banking services to digital asset service providers, the naira—Nigeria’s national currency—took a rapid nosedive amid accusations that the world’s leading digital asset exchange, Binance, was manipulating the naira exchange rates, contributing to the currency’s woes. The government swiftly banned offshore exchanges and arrested two Binance executives.

However, in June, the Nigeria Senate committee and the head of the country’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) were hinting at a softening of opinion, suggesting that digital assets have a big role to play in the country.

“I believe that we are going to see more government activities in stock exchange, capital market, commodities exchange, and crypto,” said Senator Osita Izunaso, chair of the Senate Capital Markets Committee. “Since Nigerians are trading in crypto, why are we not regulating it? Where is the money going if we don’t regulate activities in the crypto market? You can’t stop them from trading in the crypto market. So, because we can’t stop them, you have to regulate it.”

This appeared to be a strong indication that more significant digital asset regulation is on the horizon in Nigeria.

Finally, unwinding from our hectic global tour with a relaxing visit to one of the world’s foremost proponents of the sauna, in April, Norway passed new legislation that will mandate registration for all data centers nationwide. The framework, the first of its kind in Europe, requires data centers to disclose their owners and managers and to state which services are offered by the center.

Speaking with local news outlet VG, Norwegian Minister of Digitalization Karianne Tung explained that one of the goals of the regulation is to give local authorities more information on what the data centers are and who they are run by so that local municipal politicians will have a better basis for allowing or denying the establishment of centers in their municipalities.

“The purpose is to regulate the industry in such a way that we can close the door on the projects we don’t want,” Tung said.

Unfortunately for the blockchain space, Energy Minister Terje Aasland singled out digital asset mining as “an example of a type of business we do not want in Norway.”

Courts, ‘crypto-crime,’ and contentious identity

Global regulatory efforts often run parallel with enforcement efforts, and 2024 was another blockbuster year in this realm as well, with authorities intensifying the ongoing global crackdown on digital asset scams, frauds, and Ponzis.

This was exemplified by the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), which announced in December a record-breaking $17.1 billion in monetary relief for fiscal year 2024, primarily driven by enforcement actions involving digital assets.

The biggest haul came from the agency’s crackdown on digital asset exchange FTX, which collapsed in November 2022. The FTX case accounted for $12.7 billion in CFTC restitution and disgorgement, becoming the “largest recovery for victims and sanctions in CFTC history.”

This came less than a month after fellow finance sector regulator, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), announced a similar landmark windfall, revealing that by November, it had hit a new record for penalties and fines from its enforcement actions in the FY 2024—also due in large part to a massive settlement with a disgraced digital asset firm.

The agency net $8.2 billion in financial remedies for the year ending September 30—”the highest amount in SEC history,” said the SEC in its November 22 annual report. Over half of the total came from the regulator’s court win against Terraform Labs and its former CEO, Do Kwon, after they were found liable for fraud over the Terraform ecosystem’s collapse in 2022 that wiped out billions of dollars from the global digital asset market.

Terraform filed a voluntary Chapter 11 petition in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware on January 21, only a couple of months before a jury unanimously found the company and its founder liable for securities fraud, in April. The SEC argued that the pair should pay $4.7 billion in disgorgement and prejudgment interest and $420 million and $100 million, respectively, in civil penalties. Eventually, in June, Terraform and Kwon agreed to pay more than $4.5 billion.

Outside of Terraform, the year in litigation kicked off with a bang, as federal Judge Edgardo Ramos of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York sentenced Mark Scott, a lawyer convicted of bank fraud and money laundering through the OneCoin digital asset scheme, to 10 years in prison following a January 25 hearing.

OneCoin, which began operating in 2014, was a fraudulent digital asset sold to millions of investors worldwide through a multi-level marketing scheme, resulting in over $4 billion in losses to investors. For his part in the scheme, Scott was convicted of conspiracy to commit money laundering and conspiracy to commit bank fraud; he has been awaiting sentencing since his conviction in 2019.

Towards the latter end of the year, September saw special agents with the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) San Diego Field Office seized websites belonging to three digital asset recovery services in the agency’s ongoing crackdown on scams aimed at further defrauding victims. The same month, the SEC took its first actions against so-called “romance scammers,” announcing it had charged five entities and three individuals in connection with two “relationship investment scams” involving “fake” digital asset trading platforms NanoBit and CoinW6.

Relationship investment scams, also popularly known as “pig butchering” scams, are a type of fraud where scammers build trust with victims, convincing them to invest more money then stealing all their funds.

But it wasn’t just the U.S. tightening the screws on crypto-crime in 2024. In October, the Australian Federal Police (AFP) announced the seizure of AUS$9.3 million (US$9.3 million) in digital assets linked to the alleged head of an encrypted communication app called ‘Ghost,’ used by criminal organizations. 

The assets were seized under the Commonwealth Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 as part of an ongoing operation against illicit digital asset activity in the country, named “AFP Operation Kraken.” It was the second such action connected to Operation Kraken after assets linked to a syndicate in Western Australia were seized by the AFP-led Criminal Assets Confiscation Taskforce (CACT) in September.

According to the AFP, the operation has resulted in 46 arrests, 93 search warrants, and the seizure of 30 illegal firearms, AUS$2.37 million (US$1.62 million) in cash, and AUS$11.09 million (US$7.5 million) in digital assets.

In Europe, the German government was also taking the fight against crypto-crime, shuttering 47 digital asset exchanges on September 19 because they were being used for “criminal purposes.” The action was taken by the Central Office for Combating Cybercrime (Zentralstelle zur Bekämpfung der Internetkriminalität) and the Federal Criminal Police Office (Bundeskriminalamt), in what the latter described as a “successful strike against the infrastructure of digital money launderers in the underground economy.”

The Satoshi trial

Meanwhile, in the realm of civil disputes, the landmark case of the year for many was the U.K. court battle between Australian-born computer scientist Dr. Craig Wright and the Crypto Open Patent Alliance (COPA), a group of predominately big U.S. tech interests, including Coinbase, Kraken and formerly Meta.

Wright had previously staked a very public claim to be the pseudonymous creator of Bitcoin, Satoshi Nakamoto, and attempted to defend this claim on numerous occasions. COPA and several other interested individuals and organizations, including the BTC Core Developers, attacked his claim. The conflict percolated for several years across multiple nations, courtrooms, and media, culminating in a U.K. trial to ‘once and for all’ determine in a court of law the question of: “Whether Dr. Wright is the pseudonymous “Satoshi Nakamoto,” i.e. the person who created Bitcoin in 2009.”

The hard-fought, inflammatory, and at times ridiculous trial unfolded over two weeks in March in the U.K. High Court, after which Judge James Mellor felt the case against Wright’s claim was strong enough to give a judgment in favor of COPA, as soon as last arguments had been heard—a rare occurrence that caught everyone present by surprise, as usually there would be a period of deliberation before announcing a judgement.

“Having considered the evidence and the submissions, I have reached the conclusion that the evidence is overwhelming,” said Mellor. “Dr. Craig Wright is not the author of the Bitcoin White Paper, Dr. Craig Wright is not the person who adopted or operated under the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto, Dr. Craig Wright is not the person who created the Bitcoin system, and Dr. Craig Wright is not the author of the Bitcoin software.”

Wright was eventually ordered, amongst other things, to not initiate any further court cases based on his claim to be Satoshi without the express permission of the court and to publish a notice with the result of the trial on his website and X accounts.

Wright’s attempt to appeal the ruling was rejected by Lord Justice Arnold of the Court of Appeals in late November. It’s unclear whether he will take his appeal to the Supreme Court.

It’s unlikely 2025 will see another dramatic Satoshi-identity trial, but with regulators, lawmakers and enforcers continuing to up their collective games, next year will almost certainly bring further developments in digital asset legislation and, with them, further court proceedings for those who choose to avoid, ignore, or violate it.

Watch: Reggie Middleton on DeFi, booms/busts & crypto regulation