Crypto regulation in the United States.

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) considers a portion of crypto tokens to be securities and applies existing securities law to them. Whether a token counts as a security is assessed using the Howey test, which examines whether buyers invest money in a common enterprise with an expectation of profit derived mainly from the efforts of others. Many tokens issued via a sale to investors fall within the SEC's reach as a result.

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) oversees derivatives and treats certain cryptocurrencies, including bitcoin, more as a commodity than a security. This leads to overlapping and sometimes unclear oversight: the same company can face both regulators depending on which product it offers and how that product is legally classified.

That ambiguity has driven a series of enforcement cases against exchanges and issuers in recent years, often centred on whether a given offering should have been registered as a security. For users, this means a token's legal status can differ depending on the moment and the regulator involved, which calls for caution on US platforms.

Beyond the federal level, each state has the power to set its own rules for companies offering crypto to residents. New York is known for its BitLicense, a separate licence firms must obtain to operate in the state, with strict requirements around capital, custody and compliance. Other states apply lighter money transmission rules or their own crypto-specific frameworks.

For a company aiming for nationwide operation, this generally means checking licence requirements state by state, which raises the entry barrier for smaller providers. Some states have therefore actively tried to attract businesses with a lighter regime, creating a degree of competition between states.

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) treats crypto as property for tax purposes, not as money. That means every sale, exchange or spend of crypto can in principle be a taxable event where gain or loss is calculated against the purchase price. US taxpayers must track and report this, even for small transactions.

In recent years, reporting duties have also been introduced for intermediaries, comparable to the reporting obligations under DAC8 in the EU. US brokers and platforms must pass customer transaction data to the tax authority, increasing the visibility of crypto holdings to the IRS.

Stablecoins have received specific attention in the US because their scale and use as a payment method make them relevant to financial stability. Legislative proposals have been made that would create a federal framework for stablecoin issuers, with reserve and oversight requirements somewhat comparable to the EU's e-money token rules under MiCA, though the exact details differ.

Until such a federal framework is fully settled, large dollar stablecoins operate in an intermediate position, falling partly under state law and partly under financial oversight depending on the issuer's structure.

For users in the EU, US policy has indirect consequences: large exchanges and issuers often adjust their global policy based on US enforcement actions, and dollar stablecoins regulated in the US are widely used outside the US as well. Anyone using international platforms would do well to follow how US policy develops, even without falling under it directly.

It is also worth noting that US rules are separate from MiCA: a token treated as an exempt utility token in the EU can still be classed as a security in the US, and vice versa. There is no automatic mutual recognition between the two systems.