CROSS-BORDER CRYPTOCURRENCY PAYMENTS AND THEIR ROLE IN EU-UKRAINE FINANCIAL INTEGRATION (2024–2025)

Abstract

The growing role of cryptocurrency in cross-border financial flows between Ukraine and the EU has become one of the notable side effects of the war that began in 2022. This article examines how that role has evolved in 2024–2025, a period defined by two parallel regulatory developments: the full entry into force of the EU's Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA) and the continued, if uneven, implementation of Ukraine's Law on Virtual Assets (No. 2074-IX). The purpose of the study is to assess the volume and structure of EU-Ukraine crypto flows, identify key regulatory divergences between the two frameworks, and outline a realistic harmonisation pathway. Blockchain analytics data, NBU remittance statistics, and Eurostat figures are used alongside comparative regulatory and acquis gap-analysis methods. The results show that EU-originated crypto inflows to Ukraine in 2024 reached an estimated USD 13–16 billion, with USDT accounting for approximately 62% of identified cross-border transactions. Four regulatory gaps are found to create operational friction in practice: CASP licensing asymmetry, stablecoin classification, AML/CFT obligations, and the travel rule. The article concludes that addressing these gaps – particularly through travel rule implementation and a MiCA-aligned stablecoin regime – is a necessary condition for deeper EU-Ukraine financial integration and, ultimately, for a credible EU accession trajectory in the financial services domain.

References:

Auer, R., Cornelli, G., & Frost, J. (2020). The rise of central bank digital currencies: Drivers, approaches and technologies (BIS Working Papers No. 880). Bank for International Settlements. https://www.bis.org/publ/work880.htm

Baele, L., Ferrando, A., Hördahl, P., Krylova, E., & Monnet, C. (2004). Measuring financial integration in the euro area (ECB Occasional Paper Series No. 14). European Central Bank. https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/scpops/ecbocp14.pdf

Blandin, A., Pieters, G., Wu, Y., & Eisermann, T. (2023). Global cryptoasset regulatory landscape study. Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance, Cambridge University Press.

Böhme, R., Christin, N., Edelman, B., & Moore, T. (2015). Bitcoin: Economics, technology, and governance. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 29(2), 213–238. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.29.2.213

Chainalysis. (2024). The Chainalysis 2024 geography of cryptocurrency report. Chainalysis Inc. https://www.chainalysis.com/

Čihák, M., Demirgüç-Kunt, A., Feyen, E., & Levine, R. (2013). Financial development in 205 economies, 1960 to 2010 (NBER Working Paper No. 18946). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://www.nber.org/papers/w18946

Dmytriiev, S., & Shevchenko, O. (2023). Stablecoin-based remittances and financial resilience: Evidence from wartime Ukraine. Journal of Financial Regulation, 9(2), 178–204. https://doi.org/10.1093/jfr/fjad007

European Banking Authority. (2024). Draft guidelines on the authorization of crypto-asset service providers under MiCA (EBA/GL/2024/01). EBA.

European Parliament, & Council of the European Union. (2023). Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 of 31 May 2023 on markets in crypto-assets (MiCA). Official Journal of the European Union, L 150, 1–113. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2023/1114/oj

Financial Action Task Force. (2023). Targeted update on implementation of the FATF standards on VAs and VASPs. FATF. https://www.fatf-gafi.org/

Gozman, D., Liebenau, J., & Mangan, J. (2018). The innovation mechanisms of fintech start-ups: Insights from SWIFT's innotribe competition. Journal of Management Information Systems, 35(1), 145–179. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2018.1440768

Nakamoto, S. (2008). Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer electronic cash system. https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

Radaelli, C. M. (2000). Whither Europeanization? Concept stretching and substantive change. European Integration Online Papers, 4(8), 1–25.

Zetzsche, D. A., Buckley, R. P., & Arner, D. W. (2020). Regulating Libra: The global stablecoin problematic. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 40(1), 135–158. https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqaa009

Received: 27.03.26 / Revised: 20.04.26 / Accepted: 20.05.26 / Published: 30.06.26