Blockchain & Crypto-Assets 2026 Comparisons

Over the past 12 months, the use of blockchain technologies in France has continued to evolve, with a gradual shift from experimental projects to more structured and, in some cases, large-scale operational deployments. While the ecosystem remains primarily driven by crypto-assets, certain applications are now reaching a level of maturity that reflects the emergence of a more functional on-chain economy.

Current use cases remain largely concentrated in financial services, where blockchain-based infrastructures are increasingly used for lending, trading and settlement purposes. In particular, decentralised finance (DeFi) protocols have gained significant traction, moving beyond purely experimental models.

A notable development in this respect is the growth of the French DeFi protocol Morpho, which provides a decentralised lending infrastructure enabling direct interaction between lenders and borrowers. The protocol has reached a significant scale, with over USD10 billion in deposits and several billion dollars in outstanding loans, illustrating the increasing depth and liquidity of on-chain credit markets.

More generally, blockchain-based financial infrastructures are now increasingly designed as modular and open systems, capable of being integrated into a wide range of applications, including institutional use cases. Some protocols are now explicitly positioning themselves as infrastructure layers for global credit markets, reflecting a convergence between decentralised finance and more traditional financial models.

Beyond financial services, blockchain technologies continue to be explored in areas such as supply chain traceability, digital identity and certification mechanisms.

Looking ahead, several issues are likely to shape the development of blockchain uses over the next 12 months, which include the scalability of infrastructures, interoperability between blockchain systems and communication around crypto-assets, in a context where crypto-asset-related physical attacks and extortion incidents are increasing.

In addition, anti-money laundering (AML) and data protection continue to raise practical challenges, as illustrated by recent co-ordinated enforcement actions targeting large-scale crypto-related fraud and laundering schemes, involving the use of multiple fraudulent platforms and cross-border blockchain transactions to conceal illicit proceeds.

From a legal perspective, the interaction between blockchain technologies and IP law remains an emerging area. While blockchain may be used to record and evidence rights, such as authorship or ownership of digital content, it does not, in itself, create or transfer IP rights, which remain governed by applicable substantive law.

Recent French case law confirms this evidentiary function. In a decision of 20 March 2025, the Civil Court of Marseille accepted blockchain timestamping as a valid means of establishing the ownership of copyright, considering that blockchain-based records could contribute to proving the existence and date of creation of protected works.

In practice, blockchain is therefore increasingly used as a tool to strengthen evidentiary positions, in particular in relation to authorship, priority and traceability. However, such mechanisms are generally combined with more traditional forms of evidence, and their probative value remains subject to judicial assessment.

More broadly, the use of blockchain may raise additional legal issues in relation to database protection, software licensing, and the enforceability of rights in decentralised environments.

France does not operate a general-purpose regulatory sandbox specifically dedicated to blockchain or crypto-asset projects.

However, certain initiatives at both national and European levels offer a controlled environment for experimentation. At the European level, the Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT) Pilot Regime, in force since 2023, remains in force and allows selected market infrastructures to test the use of blockchain technologies for the trading and settlement of financial instruments under a temporary and proportionate regulatory framework. The regime is currently under review, and its extension and expansion are being considered to increase market uptake.

In France, the Autorité des marchés financiers (AMF) and the Autorité de contrôle prudentiel et de résolution (ACPR) have adopted an innovation-friendly approach, including through dedicated fintech support mechanisms. These include informal guidance, regulatory dialogue and the possibility for project sponsors to engage with the authorities at an early stage. While these initiatives facilitate innovation, they do not constitute a sandbox in the strict sense, as they do not provide for formal regulatory exemptions.

In practice, blockchain and crypto-asset projects are therefore generally required to comply with the applicable legal framework from the outset, subject to limited flexibility in supervisory expectations depending on the nature and scale of the project.

There is no comprehensive legal framework in France specifically governing blockchain technology as such, independently of the regulation of crypto-assets. Instead, blockchain-based activities are subject to a combination of existing legal regimes, depending on their nature and the sectors in which they are deployed.

In practice, the use of blockchain technologies is primarily assessed through the lens of general regulatory requirements, including contract law, liability rules, data protection and, where applicable, sector-specific regulations. This approach reflects a technology-neutral regulatory framework, under which legal obligations apply irrespective of the underlying technological infrastructure.

Responsibility and Liability

The allocation of responsibility in blockchain-based systems depends largely on the structure of the relevant network.

Where blockchain applications rely on identifiable operators or intermediaries, such as platform providers or service operators, these entities may be subject to contractual and, in some cases, statutory liability, including in relation to the proper functioning of the system and the services provided to users.

By contrast, in decentralised or permissionless environments, the identification of a responsible party may be more complex. In such cases, liability may be assessed on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the role of developers, node operators, governance participants or other actors involved in the operation of the protocol.

Outsourcing and Operational Risk

Blockchain-based solutions are often integrated into wider technical infrastructures. As a result, the use of blockchain may fall within the scope of outsourcing and operational risk management requirements, particularly in regulated sectors such as financial services.

In these contexts, firms must ensure that their use of blockchain-based solutions complies with applicable rules relating to outsourcing, including due diligence on service providers, contractual safeguards and ongoing monitoring of operational risks.

Data Protection

The interaction between blockchain technologies and data protection law, including Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (GDPR), has been significantly clarified by recent guidance from the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) in its 2025 guidelines on the processing of personal data through blockchain technologies. These guidelines emphasise that compliance cannot be disregarded based on technical constraints. In particular, the EDPB stresses that “technical impossibility” cannot justify non-compliance with data protection obligations.

From a structural perspective, the guidelines highlight several key challenges arising from the characteristics of blockchain systems, including their immutability, decentralisation and global accessibility. These features may conflict with core GDPR principles, in particular the rights to erasure and rectification, as well as data minimisation and storage limitation principles.

To address these tensions, the EDPB recommends that blockchain-based solutions be designed in accordance with the principles of privacy by design and by default. As a rule, organisations are encouraged to avoid storing personal data directly on-chain and to rely instead on off-chain storage combined with cryptographic references. Where on-chain processing is unavoidable, additional safeguards such as encryption, hashing or advanced privacy-enhancing techniques should be implemented, although such measures do not necessarily remove the qualification of the data as personal data.

The roles and responsibilities of the various actors involved in a blockchain network need to be clearly defined, in particular to determine who qualifies as a data controller or processor under the GDPR. This issue is especially complex in decentralised or permissionless environments, where governance and decision-making may be distributed across multiple participants.

Finally, the EDPB considers that blockchain-based processing will, in many cases, require the prior conduct of a data protection impact assessment (DPIA), given the potentially high risks for data subjects, in particular in relation to international data flows, traceability of transactions and long-term data persistence.

Overall, while the EDPB guidelines confirm that blockchain and data protection are not inherently incompatible, they also make clear that compliance requires careful architectural choices and ongoing governance, and that data protection must be embedded at the design stage rather than addressed retrospectively.

Anti-Money Laundering Considerations

Recent enforcement actions illustrate the practical challenges associated with the use of blockchain in illicit activities, including large-scale fraud and laundering operations involving multiple jurisdictions and the use of decentralised infrastructures.

In line with the Anti-Money Laundering Regulation (AMLR), crypto-asset service providers (CASPs) must apply customer due diligence for all occasional transactions in crypto-assets equal to or exceeding EUR1,000. Enhanced due diligence requirements also apply in specific scenarios, including:

• cross-border correspondent relationships between CASPs; and
• transactions involving self-hosted wallets.

A 2023 report from the French Court of Auditors had highlighted significant shortcomings in the supervisory and enforcement frameworks applicable to AML/CFT in the crypto-asset sector, particularly regarding the detection of unregistered providers. The October 2024 Ordinance partly responds to these concerns by strengthening oversight and compliance expectations.

Further, France took an additional step in June 2025 by introducing into the French Criminal Code a presumption of criminal origin for any transaction carried out using crypto-assets that include integrated anonymisation features or that rely on any account or technology that deliberately obscures the source or destination of crypto-asset flows.

CASPs are required to implement robust internal procedures for the identification, assessment and mitigation of money laundering and terrorism financing risks, considering the nature of their services, the transaction profiles, and the characteristics of their clients. Key obligations include:

• systematic verification of customer identity and ultimate beneficial ownership;
• implementation of the EU Travel Rule requirements under the Transfer of Funds Regulation (TFR); and
• enhanced monitoring for high-risk transactions, including those involving anonymous tools or cross-border payments.

Internally, CASPs must designate an AML/CFT compliance officer, typically reporting to senior management, and ensure that relevant staff receive appropriate training on internal AML policies and procedures.

There is no specific legislative or regulatory regime governing smart contracts under French law. As such, smart contracts are assessed under general contract law principles, primarily those set out in the French Civil Code. There are no judicial decisions on the enforceability of smart contracts to date.

Based on the Civil Code, smart contracts must meet the standard legal requirements applicable to any contract, namely: free and informed consent of the parties, legal capacity, and a lawful and sufficiently certain subject matter, which could require additional contracts if the parties do not fully understand the underlying software program.

In consumer-facing relationships, additional mandatory rules from the Consumer Code may apply, particularly in terms of information duties, withdrawal rights and fairness of terms, some of whose provisions appear to contradict the concept of DLT.

In February 2025, a joint working group composed of the ACPR, the AMF and fintech stakeholders published recommendations exploring the potential for certifying smart contracts in the context of DeFi. The objective was to anticipate future regulatory developments and to define minimum standards for reliability and security in automated contractual execution.

The group’s recommendations set out a series of principles for smart contract certification in DeFi, including:

• compliance with development best practices;
• mitigation of known vulnerabilities;
• deterministic compilation;
• public availability of source code;
• application of the principle of least privilege; and
• clear separation of critical functions.

These principles were generally endorsed by industry contributors in a synthesis report published in July 2025, laying the groundwork for future regulatory initiatives aimed at ensuring the integrity, auditability and legal reliability of smart contracts in financial applications.

France does not have any industry or trade bodies with formal regulatory or supervisory powers over blockchain or crypto-asset activities. Regulation and supervision remain the responsibility of public authorities, in particular the AMF and the ACPR.

However, several industry associations and professional organisations (such as ADAN, France Digitale, etc) contribute to the structuring of the ecosystem by promoting best practices, facilitating dialogue with regulators and supporting the development of blockchain-based projects. They do not impose binding rules on market participants.

Legal Qualification of Crypto-Assets

French law does not provide for a single, unified legal regime applicable to all crypto-assets as a category of property. Their legal qualification depends on their nature and regulatory status.

For crypto-assets falling within the scope of MiCA, French law now provides a clearer framework. Amendments to the French Monetary and Financial Code introduced in 2024 recognise crypto-assets as intangible assets capable of being owned and transferred. While they do not constitute property in the traditional sense of tangible goods, they are generally treated as assets to which proprietary rights may attach.

By contrast, crypto-assets that fall outside the scope of MiCA, such as certain non-fungible tokens (NFTs), remain subject to general principles of French civil law and the contractual arrangements between the parties. Their legal characterisation is therefore less certain and must be assessed on a case-by-case basis, depending on the rights attached to the token and the underlying asset, if any.

In a decision that drew wide commentary, the Nanterre Commercial Court classified Bitcoin as a consumable and fungible asset due to its usage and interchangeability. As a result, a loan of bitcoins was deemed to transfer ownership and risk to the borrower. The court concluded that the borrower was entitled to keep the bitcoin cash received following a hard fork, as this constituted the fruit of the original loaned bitcoins.

Ownership and Transfer Mechanisms of Crypto-Assets

Under French law, the determination of ownership of crypto-assets is closely linked to the technical mechanisms of distributed ledger technology. As a rule, ownership is deemed to be transferred upon the registration of the crypto-asset in favour of the acquirer on the relevant distributed ledger. This approach reflects the functional role of blockchain systems and recognises on-chain registration as the decisive element for establishing ownership.

Where crypto-assets are held through a crypto-asset service provider offering custody services, ownership is instead determined by reference to the internal records maintained by the custodian. In such cases, the transfer of ownership is effected through the registration of the acquirer’s position in the account or register held by the service provider. This indirect holding structure is consistent with market practice and is particularly relevant for institutional investors.

In practice, the identification of the owner may raise evidentiary issues, particularly where assets are held in self-hosted wallets. While control of the private keys is generally treated as an indicator of ownership, it does not, in itself, constitute definitive legal proof in all circumstances. As a result, contractual documentation and transaction records remain important in supporting ownership claims.

Ownership and Transfer Mechanisms of NFTs

To date, case law on the ownership of NFTs remains limited and fragmented, while legal doctrine offers divergent interpretations. Depending on the circumstances, an NFT may be construed as:

• an instrument evidencing the contractual transfer of ownership of a digital or physical asset;
• an accessory to the asset it represents; or
• merely a certificate of authenticity, without conferring any real rights over the underlying asset.

Since 2022, French legislation has allowed public auctions of intangible goods. This has enabled judicial auctioneers to offer NFTs at auction, structuring the contractual documentation so that the transfer of the token is deemed to represent transfer of ownership of the associated work.

Enforcement and Evidentiary Considerations

The enforcement of proprietary rights over crypto-assets remains particularly complex in practice, despite their qualification as intangible assets capable of being owned and, in principle, seized under French law.

French law does not provide for a specific civil enforcement regime tailored to crypto-assets. As a result, existing enforcement mechanisms must be applied by analogy. In particular, traditional attachment procedures designed for monetary claims are not directly applicable, as crypto-assets are not legally characterised as sums of money. Instead, enforcement may rely on procedures applicable to intangible rights, which are not specifically designed for blockchain-based assets and raise significant practical uncertainties.

In practice, the effectiveness of enforcement depends largely on the way the crypto-assets are held. Where assets are held through a CASP, it is theoretically possible to serve a seizure order on the intermediary, which may then be required to identify the account holder, disclose relevant information and, where applicable, block transfers. However, this approach remains dependent on the co-operation of the service provider (there being no centralised information, unlike bank accounts) and may be limited in cross-border situations.

Recently, the Lyon Judicial Court issued an injunction against an Irish-registered CASP, ordering it to disclose identifying information about the holders of a wallet linked to fraudulent transactions. The court also ordered the suspension of the wallet to prevent dissipation of the tokens, pending a decision on the merits. While crypto-asset seizures remain procedurally complex, this ruling marks a positive development for victims seeking judicial relief in France.

The French Supreme Court had already confirmed the legality of the seizure of bitcoins from a wallet account (Cour de Cassation, 15 February 2023). In that case, the wallet holder was suspected of participating in money-laundering operations involving drug trafficking, since it had employed a combination of cryptographic methods in the operations that reinforced the presumption of illegality regarding the origin of the funds.

By contrast, where crypto-assets are held in self-hosted wallets, enforcement becomes considerably more difficult. In the absence of an identifiable intermediary, access to the assets requires control over the private cryptographic keys. Without such access, even a court decision may prove ineffective in practice.

Use of Crypto-Assets in Collateral Arrangements

French law has recently evolved to recognise the use of digital assets as collateral. On 30 April 2025, the French Monetary and Financial Code was amended to introduce a specific legal framework for pledging digital assets, including to secure loans (a Lombard credit or loan).

Cryptocurrencies and other tokens may then be accepted by banks or other institutions as collateral, once the implementing decree specifying the operational details is published. The pledge is deemed to be valid and enforceable inter partes and against third parties upon the signing of a pledge declaration by the owner of the pledged digital assets. Unless otherwise agreed, the fruits and proceeds of the pledged assets are automatically included in the scope of the collateral. Where the pledged assets are held by a CASP, the service provider must, upon request from the secured creditor, provide a pledge certificate including the inventory of the underlying assets.

This new mechanism is expected to enhance legal certainty for lenders and facilitate the development of secured lending practices involving crypto-assets, while aligning with the principles of transparency and investor protection underpinning the MiCA Regulation.

There is no legal prohibition preventing credit or payment institutions from providing services to crypto-asset firms in France. Regulated entities are, in principle, entitled to open and maintain bank accounts.

However, access to banking services remains uneven in practice. Financial institutions are subject to strict AML/CFT obligations and typically apply a risk-based approach, under which crypto-asset activities are often considered higher risk, especially with foreign firms. This may result in enhanced due diligence, restrictions on certain services, or, in some cases, refusals to establish a business relationship.

Where access is denied, companies may rely on the French statutory “right to a bank account” mechanism, which allows the Banque de France to designate a credit institution to provide services. This mechanism, however, only guarantees access to basic banking services and does not necessarily cover all operational needs.

Overall, while access to banking has improved for regulated entities, it remains dependent on the institution’s risk appetite and the level of compliance demonstrated by the crypto-asset firm.

The MiCA Regulation explicitly addresses the environmental risks associated with crypto-assets, particularly those linked to the consensus mechanisms used for transaction validation.

White papers must therefore include information on the principal adverse impacts of the crypto-asset on the climate and the environment. This includes a description of the consensus mechanism used (eg, proof of work, or proof of take), together with an assessment of its environmental footprint. According to ESMA guidance, this assessment should cover:

• the energy consumption of each DLT network node;
• the location of the nodes; and
• the types of devices used to operate and maintain the distributed ledger.

CASPs are also required to publish ESG-related disclosures in a prominent place on their websites for each crypto-asset they offer. These disclosures must follow the format and indicators specified by the delegated regulation adopted by the European Commission in December 2024, which includes detailed methodologies for calculating energy consumption, energy intensity, and greenhouse gas emissions.

Annual energy consumption is the primary metric to be disclosed, with further indicators required for high-impact issuers exceeding predefined thresholds. These obligations aim to ensure greater transparency on the environmental sustainability of crypto-assets and to foster investor awareness of the ecological implications of blockchain technologies.

Personal Income Tax

France adopted a dedicated tax regime for digital assets in 2019, following a landmark decision by the Conseil d’État in April 2018. Since the Finance Law of 28 December 2018, capital gains realised by individuals resident in France on crypto-asset disposals are taxable when:

• the assets are converted into fiat currency; or
• the assets are used to purchase goods or services.

These gains are subject either to a 30% flat tax or, upon election, to the progressive income tax scale. French tax residents are required to declare such gains annually and, since 2020, to report any digital asset accounts held, used or closed abroad.

Taxation of Professional Gains

Where crypto-asset transactions are carried out on a professional basis, the resulting gains are taxed under the regime applicable to non-commercial profits (BNC). This includes, in particular, income derived from mining or similar activities. Where digital assets are received without consideration (eg, through mining), their acquisition cost is deemed to be zero for tax purposes.

Reporting Obligations and DAC8 Implementation

The regulatory framework has evolved significantly with the transposition of the EU DAC8 Directive through the Finance Law for 2025, introducing new reporting obligations applicable to CASPs. As from 1 January 2026, CASPs established in France or in the EU will be required to collect and report detailed information on their users and transactions, including:

• exchanges between crypto-assets or between crypto-assets and fiat currency; and
• transfers to or from external wallets or accounts.

These obligations are specified by a decree of 19 December 2025, which sets out due diligence requirements, the identification of reportable users and the scope of reportable transactions.

Recent legislative developments also indicate a proposal to further extend tax transparency obligations. A draft law adopted in first reading in April 2026 provides for additional reporting requirements, including obligations applicable to holders of self-hosted wallets exceeding a certain threshold.

VAT

The French tax authorities have incorporated into national guidance the Hedqvist ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU, 2015). Accordingly, the exchange of cryptocurrencies for fiat currency (and vice versa) is exempt from VAT where the crypto-assets are accepted as a means of payment.

With respect to utility tokens, the French tax authorities consider that initial token offerings (ICOs) are generally not subject to VAT, due to the uncertainty surrounding the future supply of goods or services. However, when such tokens are subsequently redeemed for identifiable goods or services, VAT applies under standard rules.

As regards NFTs, no specific VAT regime currently applies, and their treatment depends on their legal and economic characteristics, in accordance with general VAT principles.

The treatment of crypto-assets in French insolvency law remains largely unsettled, with no specific statutory framework addressing their role in collective proceedings. As a result, their qualification and treatment are assessed by reference to general principles of insolvency law, in particular the concept of “available assets” (actif disponible) used to determine whether a debtor is in a state of cessation of payments.

In this respect, a recent decision issued in February 2026 by the Versailles Court of Appeal marks a significant development. It appears to be the first reported French court decision recognising that a portfolio of Bitcoin could, under certain conditions, qualify as an available asset, on the basis of its immediate liquidity and its ability to be converted into fiat currency. This decision reflects a functional and economic approach to insolvency law, focusing on the debtor’s ability to mobilise assets in the short term, rather than on their legal nature.

However, beyond this decision, significant uncertainties remain. The treatment of crypto-assets raises a number of practical and legal issues, including valuation challenges due to price volatility, the identification and recovery of assets, and the role of intermediaries or custodians. More broadly, the absence of a specific legal framework means that the handling of crypto-assets in insolvency proceedings continues to depend on case-by-case assessments and remains largely untested in practice.

There are no industry or trade bodies with regulatory or supervisory powers over crypto-asset activities in France. Oversight remains the responsibility of public authorities, in particular the AMF and the ACPR.

For a description of the main industry and trade bodies active in the sector, see 1.1.5 Industry and Trade Bodies.

Stablecoins are subject to the comprehensive MiCA framework, depending on whether they qualify as ARTs or EMTs (2.2 Crypto-Asset Regulatory Frameworks). MiCA does not create a separate legal category for algorithmic stablecoins. However, algorithmic mechanisms used to stabilise the value of a crypto-asset are not exempt from the regulatory requirements applicable to ARTs, provided the token’s value is linked to assets.

Consequently, algorithmic stablecoins may fall within the ART regime if they meet the relevant criteria. Issuers must notably establish and maintain a reserve of assets that is legally and operationally segregated from their own assets, which must be sufficient to cover the risks associated with the referenced assets as well as the liquidity needs associated with redemption rights granted to holders.

Under MiCA, fiat-backed stablecoins are expressly regulated through a bespoke framework applicable to EMTs, which may only be issued by authorised credit institutions or electronic money institutions. As such, while MiCA establishes a dedicated regime for stablecoins, it also builds on the existing payments regulatory framework by aligning EMTs with electronic money rules, in particular as regards authorisation, governance, safeguarding of funds and redemption rights at par value.

EMTs must be fully backed by reserve assets at all times, which must be composed of assets denominated in the same official currency as the reference currency and must be held in a manner that ensures segregation from the issuer’s own assets and protection against insolvency. MiCA requires that reserve assets be invested only in highly liquid, low-risk instruments, with a significant portion held in deposits with credit institutions or in secure and liquid financial instruments, to ensure that holders can redeem their tokens at par value at any time.

In addition, MiCA imposes strict custody and safeguarding requirements, including holding reserve assets with authorised credit institutions or, in certain cases, through appropriately regulated custodians, and ensuring that they are not encumbered or used for purposes other than backing the tokens. Importantly, issuers of EMTs are prohibited from granting interest or any other form of remuneration linked to the holding of such tokens, in order to avoid their use as investment products and preserve their function as means of payment.

MiCA aims to prevent systemic risks associated with stablecoins.