Chainalysis noted that the policy agenda for 2026 is full of deadlines and developments. In the United States, market structure legislation will remain on the policy agenda, even though it is somewhat uncertain at this time just how quickly Congress will be able to resume ongoing negotiations in the new year given various priorities. Chainalysis also mentioned that in the area of taxation, implementation of the Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework will proceed as a number of nations have now committed to conducting the initial exchanges of information by 2027.
Chainalysis further stated in a blog post that national regulators that have not yet developed or implemented stablecoin regulation will “continue to make progress.”
By July 2026, U.S. federal and state regulators are required “to promulgate final regulations” in order to implement the GENIUS Act.
Chainalysis added that this will include processes “to license and regulate federal stablecoin issuers, and establishing criteria that foreign stablecoin issuers must meet in order to offer their stablecoins in the U.S.”
In Singapore, draft legislation to “implement a stablecoin regime will need to be finalized, alongside subsidiary legislation and guidance.”
In the United Kingdom, the Financial Conduct Authority or FCA is now consulting on “a tailored conduct and market framework for stablecoins, while the Bank of England is focused on the prudential and financial-stability treatment of systemically important stablecoins.”
Despite momentum in 2026, a good deal remains “to be done.”
The Financial Stability Board flagged in October that even where stablecoin regulation has been implemented, “critical gaps include insufficient requirements for robust risk management practices, capital buffers, and recovery and resolution planning”.
Similar consideration is being given “to AML/CFT expectations for stablecoin issuers, particularly with regard to secondary market monitoring.”
Accordingly, the FATF is scheduled to “issue its analysis on stablecoins in the first quarter of 2026, and this will help guide regulatory expectations globally.”
As digital assets become increasingly embedded in international financial infrastructure, regulators are now also said to be “intensifying scrutiny of the systemic risks this integration creates.”
Chainalysis added:
“Cryptocurrency has evolved from a niche tool for darknet transactions to a component of professional money laundering networks supporting a diverse range of crime types.”
Chainalysis also pointed out that the potential for crypto-enabled sanctions evasion has also surfaced in novel ways, “such as the A7A5 stablecoin.”
They added that all this coincides with the “widening of the fifth round of FATF mutual evaluations, which will exert continued pressure on regulators and industry to demonstrate the effectiveness of their AML/CFT safeguards.”
Meanwhile, with more activity moving onto blockchains, “the potential impact of operational failures increases.”
Cyber hacks and theft are a particular concern, with “over $3.4 billion in cryptocurrency stolen during 2025 and at least $2 billion of that attributed to DPRK-linked actors.”
Chainalysis further stated:
“The threat landscape may drive regulatory focus towards comprehensive cyber risk management, with supervisors scrutinizing custody arrangements, key management practices, and incident response capabilities with increasing rigor.”
Multi-layered cybersecurity frameworks will go from “being best practice to baseline supervisory expectations as regulators recognize that operational failures in crypto security could have broader national security and financial stability implications.”
Although crypto markets are global, regulation still remains national, and passporting or mutual recognition agreements “remain distant except in supranational arrangements like the EU.”
International crypto businesses that aim to scale operations “will face growing licensing and compliance costs in order to serve each market.”
In addition, while most jurisdictions are “striving to achieve similar outcomes through regulation, cross-border inconsistencies in rules can nonetheless create friction.”
For example, small but material differences “in reserve, redemption, and disclosure requirements across jurisdictions can be challenging for global stablecoin arrangements.”
Chainalysis concluded that crypto-asset exchange regulation “that prevents local users from tapping into global order books can fragment liquidity and price discovery, to the detriment of investors.”
With these concerns now said to be precipitating, the industry will be observing in 2026 whether regulators “make progress on reducing cross-border inconsistencies, building cross-border information sharing and supervisory structures, and considering passporting or mutual recognition frameworks.”