When Bitcoin first appeared, no one thought it would need a global rulebook. But today, crypto moves across borders faster than cash, and regulators can’t afford to let each country play by its own rules. That’s why international coordination on crypto regulation has become one of the most urgent tasks in global finance. Without it, exchanges operate in legal gray zones, stablecoins can trigger bank runs across continents, and investors get caught in conflicting laws. The good news? Major economies are finally talking - and sometimes even agreeing.
Why Global Coordination Isn’t Optional Anymore
Crypto doesn’t care about borders. A decentralized exchange based in Singapore can serve users in Brazil, Nigeria, and Canada all at once. But if one country bans it, another lets it run wild, and a third demands full KYC, who wins? The user loses. The system loses. And financial stability risks grow. That’s why the Financial Stability Board (FSB) is an international body that monitors and makes recommendations about the global financial system stepped in. In July 2023, they laid out clear principles: same activity, same risk, same regulation. It sounds simple, but it’s revolutionary. If a crypto lending platform in the U.S. offers 8% APY, it should face the same capital requirements as one in Germany or Japan - not be allowed to hide behind weaker rules. By October 2024, 93% of FSB members had plans to update their crypto rules. For stablecoins - digital money tied to the U.S. dollar or euro - 88% were already building frameworks. And over half expect to fully align with the FSB’s model by 2025. That’s not just talk. It’s a global shift.The UK-US Tech Propensity Deal: A New Blueprint
While the FSB sets the tone, real progress happens when major economies team up. Enter the UK-US Tech Propensity Deal is a bilateral agreement announced in September 2025 to align digital asset regulation between the United Kingdom and the United States. This wasn’t just a press release. It was a strategic move. The U.S. and U.K. are the world’s two largest financial markets. Together, they control over 40% of global crypto trading volume. Their partnership creates a powerful template: joint oversight of exchanges, shared enforcement tools, and aligned rules for DeFi and derivatives. The goal? Make it harder for bad actors to exploit regulatory gaps by moving operations offshore. This deal also sends a message to China and the EU: if you want to shape the future of digital finance, you need to play by the rules - not just build your own walled garden. The U.S. and U.K. aren’t trying to dominate. They’re trying to lead with transparency, accountability, and innovation.
How the EU’s MiCA Regulation Compares
While the U.S. and U.K. push for flexibility, the European Union’s Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) is a comprehensive regulatory framework that came into full effect in 2025, setting strict rules for crypto issuers and service providers across all EU member states took the opposite path. MiCA is the world’s first full-scale crypto law. It requires every crypto firm operating in the EU to get licensed, disclose all token details, and follow strict reserve rules for stablecoins. MiCA treats crypto like securities - not tech experiments. It bans anonymous trading, forces cold storage for assets, and requires regular audits. It’s safe. It’s slow. And it’s not always innovative. The U.S. and U.K. see MiCA as a useful guardrail - but not a model to copy. They worry over-regulation will push crypto startups to Singapore, Dubai, or Switzerland. The EU doesn’t care. Their priority is consumer protection and financial stability, even if it means slower growth. The result? Two different worlds: one focused on innovation with guardrails, the other on control with certainty.Other Global Players: IOSCO, FATF, and CBDCs
The International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) is a global body of securities regulators that issued 18 policy recommendations in November 2023 to standardize oversight of Crypto Asset Service Providers (CASPs) added its voice with 18 clear recommendations in late 2023. These aren’t laws - they’re best practices. But they matter because 90% of the world’s major markets belong to IOSCO. Their rules cover everything from exchange transparency to anti-fraud measures for crypto derivatives. Then there’s the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) is an intergovernmental organization that sets global standards to combat money laundering and terrorist financing, including through crypto asset regulations. Since 2019, FATF has pushed countries to require crypto firms to collect and share customer data - the so-called “Travel Rule.” By mid-2025, nearly all major economies were implementing it. But enforcement? Still patchy. FATF’s 2025 report showed that emerging markets still lack the tools to monitor crypto flows effectively. That’s why they’re now funding training programs in Africa and Southeast Asia. And don’t forget central banks. Central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) are digital forms of national currency issued and backed by a country’s central bank, currently being explored by 91% of central banks worldwide are being tested by 91% of central banks. The U.S. isn’t launching one yet, but the ECB’s digital euro pilot is underway. China’s digital yuan is already live in millions of wallets. These aren’t just tech projects - they’re monetary policy tools. And they’re changing how private crypto fits into the system. If your government’s digital dollar becomes the default, why would you hold Bitcoin? That’s the question regulators are now trying to answer.
Where Coordination Still Falls Short
Agreements on paper don’t mean enforcement on the ground. Many crypto firms still operate from offshore jurisdictions with no real oversight. Some stablecoin issuers hold reserves in unregulated banks. Others hide behind “decentralized” labels to avoid registration. The SEC and CFTC in the U.S. made progress in 2025 by issuing joint statements to clarify who regulates what. But enforcement is still messy. A crypto exchange might be licensed by the CFTC for futures, but the SEC says its spot tokens are unregistered securities. That confusion hurts investors. Cross-border enforcement is even harder. If a crypto scammer runs a platform from the Cayman Islands and targets users in Canada and Australia, who investigates? Who arrests them? Who freezes the funds? There’s no global police force for crypto. And then there’s the sandbox problem. SEC Commissioner Pierce proposed a cross-border regulatory sandbox - a testing zone where firms could try new products under shared rules. Sounds smart. But after the UK-US deal in September 2025, nothing concrete followed. No timeline. No participants. Just talk.What’s Next for Global Crypto Rules?
The future won’t be one global rulebook. It’ll be a patchwork - but a smarter one. The FSB, IOSCO, and FATF will keep pushing alignment. The UK-US deal will be watched closely as a potential model for other alliances - maybe between the U.S. and Singapore, or the EU and Japan. But each region will keep its own flavor: the EU’s strictness, the U.S.’s pragmatism, the Gulf’s openness. Stablecoins are the biggest test. If a major issuer like Circle or Tether faces a run - say, because its U.S. Treasury reserves are questioned - it could ripple through global markets. That’s why regulators are now demanding real-time reserve disclosures and redemption guarantees. Technical standards are also rising in importance. If a wallet can’t talk to a blockchain in another country, or a smart contract can’t verify identity across borders, crypto stays fragmented. That’s why groups like the World Economic Forum are now working on interoperability protocols. The bottom line? International coordination on crypto regulation isn’t about control. It’s about clarity. Investors need to know where their money is safe. Exchanges need to know where they can operate. Governments need to know who’s responsible when things go wrong. We’re not there yet. But for the first time, the world is moving in the same direction - even if at different speeds.Why can’t every country just copy the EU’s MiCA regulation?
MiCA is designed for the EU’s legal system, consumer expectations, and financial infrastructure. Countries like the U.S. and U.K. have more flexible, market-driven systems. Copying MiCA could stifle innovation or make compliance too expensive for small firms. Also, MiCA’s strict rules on token classification don’t always fit decentralized protocols. Each country needs rules that match its economy - not just copy a template.
Is the UK-US Tech Propensity Deal legally binding?
No, it’s a political and regulatory cooperation framework, not a treaty. It doesn’t override national laws. But it creates strong incentives: firms that follow the aligned rules get smoother access to both markets. That makes it de facto mandatory for any serious crypto business wanting to operate in both the U.S. and U.K.
What happens if a country ignores the FSB recommendations?
There’s no punishment. But countries that ignore them risk being labeled as high-risk jurisdictions. That means banks may refuse to process crypto transactions from them, exchanges may delist local tokens, and investors may avoid the market. In practice, that’s a bigger penalty than any fine.
How do stablecoins fit into global regulation?
Stablecoins are the biggest flashpoint because they act like digital cash. Regulators treat them like banks - requiring full reserve backing, regular audits, and redemption guarantees. The FSB and IOSCO both say stablecoins must be as safe as traditional payment systems. If they’re not, they could trigger a global financial panic - just like a bank run.
Will CBDCs replace Bitcoin and Ethereum?
Not replace - but compete. CBDCs are government-backed, traceable, and designed for everyday payments. Bitcoin and Ethereum are decentralized, permissionless, and often used for value storage or smart contracts. They serve different purposes. But if CBDCs become the default digital currency, demand for private crypto may drop - especially for payments. That’s why crypto advocates are pushing for interoperability, not competition.
Write a comment