Russia is once again discussing regulation of the crypto market. The trigger was a statement by the Ministry of Finance that a separate legal regime may be introduced for stablecoins. At the same time, the ministry believes that such tokens are closer to “digital currencies” than to “digital financial assets” (DFA).
At first glance, it all sounds confusing. Why not simply write “cryptocurrency” or “stablecoin” into the law? Why is bitcoin a “digital currency,” while the digital ruble is not? And where does USDT fit in at all? Let’s break down how Russian terminology is structured and why it differs so much from market language.
Why there is no word “cryptocurrency” in the laws
In Russian legislation, you will not find the terms “cryptocurrency,” “bitcoin,” or “blockchain.” Instead, more abstract wording is used: “digital currency,” “digital rights,” “distributed ledger.”
The reason is simple: the law seeks to remain technologically neutral. If a regulation directly enshrined, for example, bitcoin, the state would effectively “tie” regulation to a specific technology and even a brand. And the crypto asset market is developing too fast — new tokens appear constantly.
This logic is not new for Russian law. Laws do not say “bonds” — they use “obligations,” not “company” — but “legal entity.” Legal wording must describe the legal nature of a phenomenon, not its market name.
How digital assets are classified in Russia
The Russian systеm is built around a broader category — “digital rights.” This concept appeared in the Civil Code (Art. 128 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation) and was later specified in Law No. 259-FZ.
Today, the structure looks like this:
1. Digital financial assets (DFA)
These are essentially “digitized” traditional instruments: debt obligations, claims, sometimes — an analogue of bonds on a blockchain. They are not cryptocurrencies.
2. Utility digital rights
Tokens that grant the right to demand the transfer of goods, services, or work results. In practice, they are rarely used.
3. Digital currency
This is where things get interesting. Under 259-FZ, digital currency is a set of electronic data that:
– can be accepted as a means of payment or investment,
– is not the official currency of any state,
– does not have an obligated person (issuer) responsible to the holder.
The key criterion is the absence of an issuer. That is why decentralized cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin or ether fall under this definition.
Why the digital ruble is not a “digital currency”
It sounds paradoxical: the digital ruble is digital and a ruble at the same time. But legally, it does not belong to the category of “digital currency.”
The reason is that it is an official form of the national currency issued by the Bank of Russia. It has a central issuer and is legal tender.
Under international classification, the digital ruble belongs to the CBDC category — central bank digital currency. Unlike cryptocurrencies, it is a fully centralized systеm administered by the regulator.
This creates an interesting construction:
bitcoin — a “digital currency” under Russian law,
digital ruble — not.
From a logical standpoint, it sounds strange, but from a legal-technical standpoint — consistent.
Where stablecoins fit in this systеm
Stablecoins are a special case. Unlike decentralized cryptocurrencies, they have an issuer and a backing mechanism (for example, reserves in dollars or other assets). That means there is an obligated person.
Therefore, formally, they do not fall under the definition of “digital currency” in 259-FZ.
Currently, such tokens may be qualified as “foreign digital rights” (FDR) if they comply with Russian requirements. But in practice, most popular stablecoins do not meet these requirements: disclosure and control rules are quite strict.
That is why the Ministry of Finance is discussing the creation of a separate framework for stablecoins. Most likely, a new abbreviation will appear in the law — similar to DFA and UDR — rather than a direct borrowing of the term “stablecoin.”
Why confusion is inevitable
The problem is not uniquely Russian. Cryptocurrencies are too diverse:
– some resemble securities,
– others resemble commodities,
– some function as settlement units,
– others are hybrid instruments.
Even in the United States, debates continue over who should regulate different types of tokens and how.
The Russian legislator initially built the systеm not around the word “cryptocurrency,” but around the category of “digital rights.” This is an attempt to create a universal legal framework that can be applied to new technological solutions without constantly rewriting the law.
But the price of such universality is complex terminology and the feeling that familiar words have disappeared.
How not to get confused
You can remember a simple scheme:
– DFA — digital versions of financial instruments (similar to bonds, debts, claims).
– Digital currency — a decentralized cryptocurrency without an issuer.
– Stablecoins — tokens with an issuer and backing; a separate regime will likely be introduced for them.
– Digital ruble — a state-issued digital form of the ruble, a type of CBDC, but not a “digital currency” under 259-FZ.
There will most likely be more terms in the future. The market is developing faster than legislation. Until global practice reaches a consensus on the classification and regulation of crypto assets, lawyers and investors will have to navigate a rather complex systеm of definitions.
But if you understand the main principle — in Russian law everything is built around the presence or absence of an issuer and obligations — the logic begins to fall into place.
