How crypto laws are changing around the world in 2025.

It looks like everything will change for crypto regulation and legislation in the United States by 2025.

Token Alliance co-chairman Paul Atkins has been nominated to replace crypto rival Gary Gensler as chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Gensler's tenure drew heavy criticism for his reliance on coercive regulation, although he was instrumental in laying the regulatory foundation and laying down case laws.

On the other side of the Atlantic, the European Union has implemented the first-of-its-kind Regulation on Crypto Assets (MiCA) to regulate the crypto industry. While lauded for its intentions, MiCA's strict regulations are driving some businesses out of the region, adding to arguments over the regulatory burden on digital markets. Meanwhile, Asia continues to integrate crypto into its legal system, with significant cases setting local precedents.

In the year To address the most important legal developments in 2024 and predict the next, the magazine asked lawyers Catherine Smirnova and Yuri Bryssov of Digital and Analogue Partners in Europe, Joshua Chou of the Hong Kong Web3 Association and Charlene Ho of the Rica Group in the US.

The discussion has been edited for clarity and brevity.

Magazine: How will crypto law in the US change under the new administration?

Brisov: The Biden administration has done a lot to develop a legal framework for crypto assets. I am sure that the proceeds of this event will help the next administration.

Willingly or unwittingly, the SEC has helped shape the landscape of crypto regulation thus far. Common law countries are often based on case law. We usually control when there is a fair amount of case law, and now is the time.

Today, both Republicans and Democrats agree that crypto law reform is needed in the US. We still base crypto decisions on orange groves in California in 1946 or in the case of Hawaii.

Ho: The resignation of Gensler and the appointment of Atkins to lead the SEC will create many changes in the way the crypto industry is regulated. When I say regulated, I don't think we will have a comprehensive regulatory system next year. In fact, I'd venture to guess that Trump and Atkins will likely resist creating new regulations, instead increasing transparency on where the crypto industry operates.

Gensler has been criticized for taking an overly aggressive approach in deviating from the SEC's congressional authority and essentially curtailing its powers and enforcing what is unconstitutional. Hopefully, the change we will see is a reduction in enforcement of such regulation and perhaps a more proactive, business-friendly and crypto-friendly approach by the agency.

Magazine: What changes can we expect at the SEC when Atkins leaves as chairman, and how much impact will it have on ongoing legal issues?

Ho: By all accounts, Atkins' background is very business. He was previously the commissioner of the SEC so there is some history in how he handles this role.

That being said, there is a precedent set by Gensler for him to follow. Just because it's new [chair] Being redacted does not mean that all previously released legal work product is now gone. Hypothetically, let's say a lawsuit is filed – there's more. If Atkins wants to change the SEC's position, he can't announce it alone. They must go through a legal process and have some reason to change their claim. If they are the plaintiff, they can drop the lawsuit entirely. But the commissioner does not have unlimited discretion to completely change everything in progress.

Magazine: How are businesses in the EU responding to the implementation of MiCA and other digital regulations?

Smirnova: This year, what I call the Mario Draghi report says that our digital policy is not as good as we expected because many potential unicorns are going to America. We've long believed that earlier, clearer regulation would provide clarity, but no—businesses see it as a regulatory burden.

MiCA, of course, is the first [crypto] Regulation covering all fields in the world in an attempt to make this market more open and transparent to all participants. We now have a regulation that is more stringent and requires no further action from national authorities.

Next year, we will see if we still have a crypto market in the EU or if the regulatory burden will drive them away. We are looking forward to more protections for digital consumers through the Digital Fairness Act. What we're seeing now is that digital asset markets are increasingly regulated by regulations that aren't specifically designed for them. We have the E-Commerce Directive, DMA, DSA and GDPR. The proposal [for the Digital Fairness Act] It has already been published and released for comments by the European Commission and we expect it to be implemented next year. There will be a lot of pressure on digital business in the European Union.

Chu: You need three things: legislation, enforcement action, and finally two that can be tested in court. Before you say that the regulatory system in any region is maturing.

Using GDPR as context, when it came out, it rocked a lot of boats. Clarity on what to do only emerged when the rain of enforcement and fines began to fall.

Magazine: And have there been any crypto lawsuits tried in Hong Kong courts?

Chu: In Hong Kong this year, we have seen legal cases that are now being tested in court. So we have a few important decisions in Hong Kong, including the first case against JPEX. Next year we will see more developments in that fraud case.

We have seen lawsuits against decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs). So we are looking at how private parties and regulators are proceeding in addressing these new entities.

Magazine: How can Hong Kong meet its crypto hub demand with just a few licensed exchanges?

Chu: Do you really want a lot of exchanges floating around? If we look at a typical stock exchange, there is one stock exchange. Why do we suddenly need three exchanges to trade three identical tokens outside of arbitrage environments?

It's great to be a hub and it's great to have choices. But similar to virtual banks, the banks are being picked up. The last thing you want to do is create too many competing exchanges and then get nowhere. It also spreads regulatory control too thin as a result.

Hong Kong has one of the strictest regulatory systems. You can't even have options or derivatives. So people wonder why they buy it if it's on the spot and you own it. There are many issues that need to be addressed.

Magazine: What are some legal developments that are generally being ignored by crypto industry participants?

Smirnova: First, the Digital Markets Act and the Digital Services Act came into effect and many tech companies left the EU.

Number two, EU AI legislation has been passed and will affect all jurisdictions. It is expected to have a similar effect to the GDPR. If you provide AI-related services in the EU, this law applies to your business. It doesn't matter where you enter.

Now digital companies have to worry about competition, transparency, privacy, AI and consumer safety.

Ho: I was really interested in some AI agents and AI simulation developments. I think that's a big step forward in 2024. It's something we'll see more of in the future, especially with Coinbase's AI agent transactions. To me, that's a little crazy. I find that pretty novel and very gray with legal liability.

I'd say we probably won't see much legislation, but there may be court cases that shed light on apportionment of liability. The reason I say I don't foresee much legislation is because for many years the crypto industry has been without a comprehensive legislative system in the US. We have no MCA equivalent here. That is why the current SEC was implemented the way it was. They have basically been doing and translating for years and have never had any crypto in mind. So to think that we will have AI-crypto legislation, I think is a tall order.

One of the other big things happening is the repeal of the Chevron deference doctrine. The Supreme Court has essentially overturned long-held doctrine that essentially gives or requires deference to agency statutory interpretation.

That's important because in this particular case with crypto, that means the courts don't need to pass on the agency's interpretation. Gensler's interpretation or the Commission's interpretation was certainly very limited in its ability to work with the crypto industry. If courts no longer defer to that definition, the logical conclusion is that the crypto industry will have more freedom to do more.

Brisov: My expectation for next year is the awareness of crypto assets. In common law we have two types of property. Basically, we call tangible and intangible things possessively chosen and functionally chosen. Possession is your iPhone, your apartment or your car. Things in motion are things like securities, dept or intellectual property.

If we take NFTs for example, even though they are literally intangible, they are seen as some sort of tangible asset. So they cannot be safe. But now the SEC has begun investigating OpenSea. NFTs can be securities, they say.

In the United Kingdom, there is a bill that provides for a third property rate where possession is not preferred, not a preferred deed, but a third category of property: a digital object or digital property. Through the case law in the US and the UK, I think legislation will also be passed. This specific digital asset creates a new asset type in the legal domain. It will be a big trend going forward in the coming years.

John Yun

Yohan Yun is a multimedia journalist who has been reporting on blockchain since 2017. He has contributed as an editor to crypto media outlet Forkast and covered Asian technology stories as an assistant reporter for Bloomberg BNA and Forbes. He spends his free time cooking and experimenting with new recipes.