The European Commission has imposed a €200 million fine on Temu after finding that the online marketplace breached obligations under the Digital Services Act by failing to properly assess and mitigate systemic risks linked to illegal products sold to consumers in the EU.
According to the Commission, Temu’s 2024 risk assessment did not meet DSA requirements because it relied on general information about the wider e-commerce sector rather than evidence specific to its own platform. Regulators also found that the company significantly underestimated the likelihood that the EU consumers would encounter illegal or unsafe products.
The investigation drew on mystery shopping exercises and information from customs and market surveillance authorities. Findings included chargers that failed basic safety requirements and baby toys that contained chemicals above legal limits or presented choking hazards.
Regulators also criticised Temu for failing to sufficiently assess how recommender systems and influencer promotion programmes could contribute to the spread of illegal products on the platform.
Temu must now submit a detailed action plan explaining how it will address the shortcomings identified by the Commission. The plan will be reviewed with the European Board for Digital Services before implementation requirements are set. Failure to comply could lead to additional penalties under the DSA.
The decision is part of a wider Commission investigation into Temu, including issues related to potentially addictive design, recommender systems, and data access for researchers.
Why does it matter?
The fine marks one of the most significant enforcement actions under the Digital Services Act against a major online marketplace. It shows that the DSA is being used not only to address illegal content, but also to require platforms to assess and reduce consumer safety risks linked to illegal and unsafe goods. The case reinforces the EU’s focus on proactive risk management by very large online platforms, including how marketplace design, recommendations, and influencer promotion can amplify the reach of harmful products.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
The first incident affected users trying to log in or create an account. OpenAI classified the issue as degraded performance affecting ChatGPT and APIs. The company began investigating at 03:12 a.m., applied a mitigation at 03:28 a.m., and marked the incident resolved at 04:57 a.m.
A second incident affected ChatGPT conversations. OpenAI began investigating the issue at 03:18 a.m., applied a mitigation at 03:29 a.m., and marked the incident resolved at 04:58 a.m. The company said all impacted services had fully recovered.
OpenAI’s official status page listed both incidents as degraded performance rather than a full outage. The company did not provide further details on the cause of either disruption in the incident updates.
The brief disruption highlights the growing reliance on AI services for daily work, communication, and software development, as even short periods of degraded performance can affect users and organisations that depend on cloud-based AI tools.
Why does it matter?
The incidents show how widely used AI services are becoming part of everyday digital infrastructure. Even brief login or conversation failures can disrupt work for individuals, developers, businesses, and teams that rely on ChatGPT and related API services.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech, and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
Argentina’s national government has sent Congress a bill aimed at regulating online gambling, preventing gambling addiction, and blocking financial and technical support for unauthorised betting platforms.
The bill, titled the Law on the Prevention of Gambling Addiction and Regulation of Online Gambling, would coordinate action between several state bodies, including the Central Bank of Argentina, the National Securities Commission, the National Communications Agency, and NIC Argentina.
The proposal would prohibit financial institutions, payment service providers, and virtual asset service providers from offering services to unauthorised gambling operators. It would also allow NIC Argentina to suspend, disable, or remove domains reported by competent authorities in relation to illegal gambling.
The bill also restricts the promotion, sponsorship, and dissemination of illegal gambling platforms across television, radio, public spaces, social networks, and digital environments. Media companies, agencies, and content creators would be required to verify that promoted operators have official authorisation. Measures to protect minors are also included.
Authorised platforms without effective technological systems to identify age and exclude minors would be prohibited from operating financially. The Central Bank would also be required to block money transfers from accounts linked to minors to gambling operators.
The proposal would amend the Criminal Code to introduce prison terms of three to six years for those operating unauthorised betting systems. It would also create a new offence, punishable by two to four years in prison, for those who provide essential financial, technological, advertising, or digital services to unauthorised operators.
The bill follows growing scrutiny of online betting and prediction markets in Argentina and abroad, including earlier action against Polymarket for alleged unlicensed gambling.
Why does it matter?
The proposal shows how governments are targeting the infrastructure that enables illegal online gambling, including payment systems, domain names, advertising channels, and crypto-related services. By including virtual asset service providers, Argentina is treating crypto payment rails as part of the regulated gambling ecosystem when they are used to support unauthorised betting platforms. That could raise compliance expectations for crypto firms, payment providers, media companies, and online platforms.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech, and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our chatbot!
Participants at EuroDIG 2026 discussed whether the European Digital Identity Wallet (EUDI Wallet) and the proposed EU business wallet could become foundational infrastructure for a more integrated European digital single market.
The session focused on reducing fragmentation in digital identity, trust, and cross-border administrative procedures across Europe. Speakers broadly supported the wallets as tools for simplification and interoperability, while also raising concerns about adoption, implementation, and Europe’s dependence on non-European digital infrastructure.
Nathan Meurens, CTO of EURid, framed the discussion around a central challenge for European integration: despite advances in the single market, digital trust and identity systems remain fragmented across member states.
Norbert Sagstetter, Head of Unit for Digital Identity and Trust at the European Commission, outlined the timeline and objectives of the updated European Digital Identity Framework. He said all EU member states will be required to offer a voluntary European Digital Identity Wallet by the end of 2026 under common technical and legal standards.
According to Sagstetter, the wallet is designed to allow citizens to identify themselves digitally, sign documents, and share verified attributes and official records under user control across both public and private services.
He described the wallet as a response to the growing role of private technology platforms in digital identity management. The framework, he said, aims to provide a citizen-controlled alternative governed by European law and supervised by public authorities.
Sagstetter also highlighted the concept of ‘electronic attestation of attributes,’ which could include digital versions of documents such as driving licences, educational credentials, certificates, and potentially health-related records.
The discussion also focused heavily on the proposed EU business wallet, which remains under negotiation.
Sagstetter argued that companies across Europe still face fragmented identification systems and inconsistent administrative procedures, particularly in cross-border interactions. The business wallet, he said, is intended to enable legally effective exchange of documents and interoperable communication between companies and public administrations.
Benjamin Knirsch of SMEunited said small and medium-sized enterprises continue to face duplicated reporting obligations, fragmented platforms, and repeated verification procedures across Europe. He argued that reusable verified company information and implementation of the once-only principle could significantly reduce administrative burdens for SMEs.
However, Knirsch warned that simplification would fail if interoperability remained partial or uneven. He criticised proposals that would exempt smaller municipalities from participation, arguing that SMEs often interact most frequently with local authorities.
Pedro Oliveira of BusinessEurope also supported the business wallet proposal, describing it as one of the few EU digital initiatives likely to create tangible, practical value for businesses.
Oliveira pointed to fragmented company registration and beneficial ownership systems as examples of existing inefficiencies the wallet could help address. He also suggested future links between the wallet and due diligence obligations, Know Your Customer procedures, product passport systems, and possible EU company identifiers.
Several participants stressed that successful implementation will depend on integrating the wallets with existing infrastructure rather than creating parallel systems.
Jaromir Talir of the Czech registry CZ.NIC described how domain registries have struggled for years with reliable registrant identification, particularly in the context of cybersecurity and regulatory requirements. Talir said large-scale EUDI wallet pilots involving domain registries have already demonstrated use cases including registrant verification, authentication, and proof-of-domain-ownership credentials.
He also noted that some countries, including France and Denmark, already operate wallet-like systems while full certification processes continue.
A major part of the discussion focused on digital sovereignty and Europe’s dependence on foreign technology infrastructure.
Sebastiano Toffoletti of the European DIGITAL SME Alliance warned that wallet deployment still depends heavily on US-controlled mobile operating systems and hyperscale cloud providers. He argued that Europe should not build critical identity infrastructure on systems it does not control.
Toffoletti also suggested that large-scale wallet adoption could help support broader adoption of European digital alternatives by creating new distribution channels for European services.
Other speakers responded that the framework itself remains technologically neutral and does not mandate any specific infrastructure provider.
Meurens argued that the wallet framework could operate on different infrastructures if Europe chose to develop them, while Talir noted that alternative implementations, such as web-based wallets, remain possible.
The discussion also addressed concerns that the wallet ecosystem could ultimately strengthen the role of major technology companies if implementation becomes concentrated among dominant providers.
Vittorio Bertola of Open-Xchange warned that Europe could face two separate risks. Either the wallet fails to achieve adoption, or it succeeds but becomes dependent on large non-European firms capable of operating identity services at scale.
Sagstetter defended the wallet’s public-private model, arguing that successful adoption will require both trusted public oversight and useful private-sector services. He also stressed that Europe is contributing actively to the development of international digital identity standards rather than simply adopting frameworks developed elsewhere.
Several participants emphasised that European digital sovereignty should remain open and collaborative rather than protectionist or isolationist.
Oliveira described the concept as ‘open sovereignty,’ while Meurens argued that reducing vendor lock-in through interoperability, open standards, and diversification should remain the primary objective.
The session concluded with broad agreement that the EUDI wallet and the business wallet could become important infrastructure for the European single market if they achieve interoperability, security, trust, and practical usability.
Participants also agreed that adoption will depend heavily on whether the wallets provide convenient and widely used everyday services while preserving privacy, user control, and legal certainty.
EuroDIG 2026 took place on 26 and 27 May at the Charlemagne Building of the European Commission in Brussels under the theme ‘European Voices for the Future of the Internet – Celebrating 20 Years of .eu and the Beginning of a New Internet Governance Era’.
Digital Watch Observatory followed EuroDIG 2026 through a dedicated event page, featuring session information and reporting from Brussels.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
Central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) have rapidly become one of the most debated topics in global finance. The growing adoption of cryptocurrency, the expansion of stablecoins, and the broader digitalisation of payment systems have prompted governments and central banks to reconsider how state-issued money should function in the digital era. Supporters present CBDCs as a modern financial innovation while critics argue that they could increase state control over financial activity.
Unlike traditional debates surrounding cryptocurrencies, discussions about CBDCs extend beyond the technology alone. Questions surrounding privacy, financial sovereignty, surveillance, monetary policy, and the future role of governments in digital finance now sit at the centre of the global CBDC debate. As more jurisdictions move from research to pilot programmes and implementation, CBDCs are increasingly viewed as a response to the rise of crypto assets and a broader transformation of modern financial infrastructure.
image via Magnific
What are CBDCs?
A central bank digital currency is a digital form of fiat currency issued and controlled by a central bank. Unlike decentralised cryptocurrencies, CBDCs remain fully tied to state monetary systems and national currencies. Their value is supported by governments in much the same way as traditional currency.
Anti-crypto by design, CBDCs differ significantly from cryptocurrencies despite often using similar technological concepts. Decentralised digital assets such as Bitcoin operate without a central authority and rely on distributed blockchain networks, whereas CBDCs are centrally managed and regulated. In practice, CBDCs represent a digital state currency, not an alternative financial system.
Most CBDC models fall into two categories: retail CBDCs and wholesale CBDCs. Retail CBDCs are designed for public use in everyday transactions, while wholesale CBDCs focus on interbank settlements and institutional payments.
Central banks have accelerated CBDC research partly because digital payments increasingly dominate global commerce. The rapid growth of crypto markets and private stablecoins has also intensified discussions about whether states risk losing influence over monetary systems if digital finance evolves outside government control.
image via Magnific
Why governments support CBDCs
Governments and central banks generally present CBDCs as a financial modernisation tool. One of the most frequently cited advantages involves payment efficiency. CBDCs could potentially enable faster domestic transactions, reduce settlement delays, and lower the cost of cross-border payments. In economies where digital payments already dominate consumer behaviour, central banks increasingly argue that public money must evolve alongside technological change.
Another major factor behind CBDC development is monetary sovereignty. The rise of cryptocurrencies and privately issued stablecoins has raised concerns among policymakers that private digital assets could weaken the state’s influence over financial systems. From this perspective, CBDCs are viewed as a way to maintain central bank authority in an increasingly digital economy.
Supporters also argue that CBDCs could improve financial inclusion. In regions where large parts of the population remain outside of traditional banking systems, digital state-backed wallets could provide broader access to financial services without requiring conventional bank accounts.
Some policymakers also view CBDCs as a strategic response to growing geopolitical competition in financial technology. Digital currencies could eventually reshape international payment networks and reduce dependence on existing cross-border settlement systems. As a result, CBDCs are increasingly becoming part of broader discussions surrounding economic competitiveness and technological sovereignty.
image via Magnific
Why the crypto community opposes CBDCs
Opposition to CBDCs within the cryptocurrency community largely centres on concerns surrounding centralisation and state control. Many crypto advocates argue that CBDCs contradict the original philosophy behind decentralised cryptocurrencies, which were designed to operate independently of governments and central financial institutions. Moreover, CBDCs are seen as an attempt to imitate cryptocurrencies.
Privacy concerns remain one of the most significant criticisms. Critics fear that CBDCs could expand government visibility into personal financial activity, particularly if digital payment systems become directly connected to state-controlled infrastructure. Unlike cash transactions, which provide a degree of anonymity, CBDC transactions could potentially allow authorities to monitor spending patterns in real time.
Concerns about programmable money have also intensified debate. Some critics argue that CBDCs could theoretically enable restrictions on how, where, or when money is spent. Although many governments insist that such scenarios are speculative, the possibility of programmable financial controls has become a major talking point in the crypto industry.
Another argument frequently raised by crypto supporters involves financial autonomy. Decentralised cryptocurrencies allow users to self-custody assets without relying on banks or governments. CBDCs, by contrast, remain fully integrated into state-controlled financial systems. For many in the crypto sector, this distinction represents a fundamental ideological divide rather than merely a technological difference.
Critics also argue that CBDCs could increase pressure on decentralised cryptocurrencies through stricter regulatory frameworks. Some fear that governments could eventually favour state-backed digital currencies while imposing stricter compliance requirements on private crypto platforms and decentralised finance ecosystems.
image via Magnific
Global CBDC projects and implementation challenges
Several jurisdictions have already launched or tested CBDC initiatives, producing mixed results across different economic and political environments.
China remains one of the most advanced examples through its digital yuan project, also known as e-CNY. Chinese authorities have promoted CBDC for years as part of a broader effort to modernise payments and strengthen the country’s digital financial infrastructure. However, public adoption has reportedly remained relatively weak despite extensive state support and pilot programmes in major cities. Surveys have indicated that a large majority of respondents neither encountered nor used the digital currency, highlighting ongoing scepticism among consumers.
India has adopted a noticeably more cautious approach towards CBDC implementation through its e-rupee project. Since its launch in late 2022, adoption has remained limited despite various incentives designed to encourage usage. Indian authorities have repeatedly stressed that while CBDCs could improve trade settlements, remittances, and cross-border transactions, the long-term consequences for the banking system remain uncertain. Officials from the Reserve Bank of India have warned that CBDCs could potentially destabilise traditional financial institutions during periods of economic stress.
Russia has also accelerated the development of the digital rouble as part of its broader financial modernisation strategy. The digital rouble is expected to enter a phased public rollout in 2026, with pilot programmes already including government transfers, commercial payments, transport services, and real estate transactions. Russian authorities have recently announced the country’s first digital ruble salary payment, marking an important symbolic milestone for the project. Authorities have stated that future CBDC salary payments would remain optional for recipients. The Bank of Russia has described the project as one of the world’s most advanced CBDC initiatives and has highlighted smart contracts, budgetary payments, and cross-border settlements as key areas for future application.
In contrast, the United States has become one of the most politically divided jurisdictions regarding CBDCs. Debate surrounding a potential digital dollar has increasingly focused on privacy, civil liberties, and financial surveillance concerns. Several Republican lawmakers have pushed for permanent restrictions that would prevent the Federal Reserve from issuing or even testing a US CBDC. Compared to jurisdictions actively implementing CBDCs, the United States appears to be increasingly focused on limiting government involvement in digital currency systems rather than expanding it.
Meanwhile, the European Central Bank continues to develop the digital euro project. European policymakers have framed the project as part of a broader effort to preserve monetary sovereignty and reduce dependence on non-European payment providers in an increasingly digital economy. According to the ECB, the system is intended to combine the convenience of digital payments with certain characteristics traditionally associated with cash. However, privacy has become one of the most sensitive aspects of the European debate.
Collectively, these international examples demonstrate that CBDC implementation is not solely a technological challenge. Public trust, political culture, regulatory design, and perceptions of privacy and state control may ultimately prove to be as important as the underlying digital infrastructure itself.
image via Magnific
CBDCs and cryptocurrencies: competition or coexistence?
Despite the growing tension between the two models, CBDCs and cryptocurrencies may not necessarily become direct replacements for one another. Analysts argue that the two systems could coexist while serving different purposes within the broader digital economy.
CBDCs are primarily designed to preserve and modernise existing monetary systems, whereas cryptocurrencies often aim to provide alternatives outside of traditional financial structures. From that perspective, CBDCs may function as a regulated digital payment infrastructure while decentralised cryptocurrencies continue to attract users seeking autonomy, borderless transactions, or alternative stores of value.
Some observers also believe that CBDC development could indirectly accelerate digital asset adoption by familiarising the public with blockchain-related technologies, tokenised payments, and digital wallets. Greater public exposure to digital currencies may ultimately increase broader participation in digital finance in general.
At the same time, tensions between the two ecosystems are unlikely to disappear entirely. The debate over CBDCs increasingly reflects a broader conflict between institutional control and decentralised financial models. Questions surrounding privacy, regulation, and ownership of financial data are likely to remain central as digital currency systems continue to evolve.
image via Magnific
Rethinking money, trust, and sovereignty
Ultimately, the debate over CBDCs is not merely about payments or financial technology, but about the future relationship between citizens, money, and the state itself. Throughout modern history, money has represented more than just economic value alone- it has reflected trust, sovereignty, political power, and social stability. As finance becomes increasingly digital, governments and societies are now forced to reconsider the role that public money should play in an environment shaped by decentralised technologies, borderless transactions, and rapidly evolving digital economies.
CBDCs may therefore emerge as one of the defining financial experiments of the twenty-first century. Their long-term significance will likely depend not only on technological efficiency but also on whether central banks can preserve public confidence while adapting to a digital era that increasingly values autonomy, privacy, and financial flexibility. Excessive state control could intensify public resistance, while insufficient innovation may risk weakening the relevance of sovereign currencies in a global financial system increasingly influenced by private digital assets and decentralised networks.
Rather than representing a simple conflict between governments and cryptocurrency communities, the rise of CBDCs may ultimately signal the beginning of a broader transformation in how value, trust, and economic participation are understood in the digital age. The countries that succeed may not necessarily be those with the most advanced technology, but those capable of balancing innovation with civil liberties, monetary stability with openness, and financial modernisation with public trust.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech, and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our chatbot!
Vietnam will require disclosure labels for certain AI-generated and AI-edited content from May under a new government decree aimed at improving online transparency.
Under Decree 142/2026/ND-CP, organisations and individuals using AI systems must disclose when content has been created or altered by AI in ways that could affect perceptions of authenticity.
The rules apply to AI-generated or AI-edited audio, image, and video content, particularly material imitating real people or realistic events. Particularly, it applies to content that imitates the appearance or voice of real people or recreates real-life events in a convincing manner. According to the decree, disclosures must be clear, visible, and recognisable before or during user access to the content.
The decree states that disclosures designed to obscure the AI-generated nature of content will not satisfy the requirements. Anyways, several exemptions are included. Several exemptions are included, such as technical quality improvements that do not materially alter content.
The framework also excludes certain AI-assisted editing functions, including spelling correction, translation, summarisation, and grammar editing, where original meaning is preserved. Additional exemptions apply to internal organisational use and controlled research or testing environments not intended for public release. At the end, content produced during research, development or testing activities in controlled environments and not released to the public is also an exemption.
Authorities said disclosures may take different forms depending on content type, including labels, captions, interface notices, or audio announcements. Labels may appear directly on content, in titles, captions and descriptions, through platform interfaces or even as audio announcements. Films and artistic productions may include disclosures in opening sections, end credits or supporting materials.
Responsibility for compliance will apply both to parties generating AI content and those distributing it publicly. Parties generating or editing AI content must provide the information needed for labelling, while those publishing the material to the public must ensure disclosure rules are followed.
Vietnam’s Ministry of Science and Technology is expected to publish additional technical guidance related to the implementation of the disclosure framework. Officials said the guidance would not create additional administrative procedures or business conditions or obligations beyond those already outlined in the decree.
Why does it matter?
The decree reflects broader international efforts to improve transparency around AI-generated media as synthetic content becomes more realistic and widely accessible. Disclosure requirements are increasingly being explored by governments as a way to address misinformation risks, impersonation concerns, and public trust in digital content.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech, and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
The European Commission has postponed the presentation of its tech sovereignty package until 3 June, following several earlier delays. The publication had previously been scheduled for 25 March, 15 April and 27 May.
According to Euractiv, the package is expected to include the proposed Cloud and AI Development Act and Chips Act 2. The initiatives are intended to support digital infrastructure development and strengthen Europe’s semiconductor sector. The measures are also expected to encourage data centre investment and semiconductor manufacturing within the EU.
The latest postponement follows comments from the US ambassador to the EU concerning potential trade implications of European digital regulation. Euractiv additionally reported uncertainty regarding a proposed EU open-source strategy previously linked to the package.
Consumer organisations have filed complaints against Meta, TikTok, and Google over alleged failures to address financial scam advertising on their platforms.
The complaints were submitted by the European Consumer Organisation (BEUC) and partner organisations to the European Commission and national authorities under the Digital Services Act. According to research cited by the organisations, nearly 900 suspected fraudulent advertisements were identified across 13 countries between December 2025 and March 2026.
The groups said a relatively small proportion of reported content was removed, while many notices were allegedly rejected or received no response. Consumer organisations argued that the reported moderation response may leave users exposed to large volumes of potentially fraudulent advertising content.
BEUC and partner organisations are calling for investigations into whether the platforms are complying with Digital Services Act obligations related to systemic risks and harmful content.
The organisations also urged regulators to consider enforcement measures if non-compliance is identified, arguing that current moderation efforts are insufficient to mitigate systemic risks linked to online financial fraud.
Why does it matter?
The case highlights a broader issue of how effectively large online platforms can be held accountable for systemic risks such as financial scams. When reported fraudulent ads remain online at scale, it raises questions about whether existing regulatory tools are strong enough to protect consumers in practice.
It also puts pressure on enforcement bodies to move beyond complaint handling and ensure meaningful, consistent compliance across the digital advertising ecosystem.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech, and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our chatbot!
The European Commission has launched a public consultation on the functioning of the EU’s Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation, seeking feedback from stakeholders and the wider public as digital asset markets continue to evolve.
Implemented in 2024, MiCA established the EU’s harmonised regulatory framework for crypto-assets and related services. It covers crypto-assets, asset-referenced tokens, e-money tokens, stablecoins, their issuers and crypto-asset service providers operating across the bloc.
The Commission said crypto-asset markets and the wider policy landscape have continued to expand since MiCA was developed. It is assessing whether the current framework remains fit for purpose in light of market and international regulatory developments.
The consultation seeks feedback on MiCA’s main building blocks. It includes a public questionnaire for individuals and a targeted consultation covering more technical and legal questions for stakeholders such as digital asset issuers and service providers, financial institutions, technology providers, academia, think tanks, industry bodies, consumer organisations and the EU public authorities.
Feedback submissions are open until 31 August. The Commission said the responses will inform its future policy work on digital assets.
Why does it matter?
The consultation shows that crypto regulation is entering a more adaptive phase, in which policymakers are assessing whether existing rules can keep pace with evolving markets and international approaches. Any future adjustment to MiCA could affect stablecoin issuers, crypto service providers, investors and wider digital finance policy in the EU, while also influencing regulatory debates in other jurisdictions.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech, and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our chatbot!
Representatives Steven Horsford, Max Miller, Suzan DelBene and Mike Carey introduced the proposal on 19 May, calling for clearer and more practical tax standards for digital assets. Supporters say the bill is intended to provide clarity, consistency and guardrails for the taxation of digital asset activities.
The proposal would create a deemed-basis rule for regulated, dollar-pegged payment stablecoins, treating certain digital dollars used like cash as cash for tax purposes. Lawmakers say the measure is designed to reduce administrative burdens for the Internal Revenue Service, provide consumer relief in routine transactions and prevent misuse through trading or arbitrage activity.
The bill would also provide tax certainty for foreign investors trading on US digital asset platforms, extend securities-lending tax principles to qualifying digital asset loans and apply anti-abuse provisions such as wash-sale and constructive-sale rules to digital assets.
Additional provisions would align the tax treatment of professional digital asset dealers and active traders with existing securities markets by allowing a mark-to-market election. The bill would also address the ‘phantom income’ issue for miners and stakers by creating an election for when digital asset rewards are taxed, modernise charitable contribution rules for digital assets and clarify that passive protocol-level staking by investment funds is not a trade or business.
The measure arrives as Congress debates broader cryptocurrency legislation linked to market structure and stablecoin oversight, including the CLARITY Act. Together, the proposals show how US lawmakers are increasingly addressing digital assets through taxation, consumer protection, market integrity and financial regulation.
Why does it matter?
Crypto taxation remains one of the main barriers to wider digital asset use, especially for stablecoin payments, staking, lending and routine transactions. The PARITY Act would aim to make tax treatment more predictable while applying anti-abuse rules to digital assets that are more closely aligned with traditional financial markets. Its impact would depend on whether Congress can integrate tax reform with wider debates on stablecoins, market structure and investor protection.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech, and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our chatbot!
