The draft Digital Asset PARITY Act, introduced by bipartisan lawmakers in the United States Congress, is drawing significant attention from the finance and technology communities. This is not only because of its specific tax-related provisions, but also because of the policy mindset behind it: treating crypto as an integral part of the digital economy that requires practical governance, rather than as a peripheral phenomenon that must be “cracked down on at all costs.”
1. Stablecoins and the “tax compliance nightmare”
The most notable aspect of the draft Digital Asset PARITY Act lies in how lawmakers approach stablecoins as a payment instrument, rather than a speculative asset. The proposal to exempt capital gains tax on USD-pegged stablecoin transactions under $200 reflects an important shift in policy thinking: tax law should align with real-world usage, instead of applying rules designed for traditional investment assets.
Under the current U.S. tax framework, crypto is technically classified as property. This creates a paradox: every time a user spends stablecoins—even to buy a cup of coffee or pay for an online service—a taxable event may arise if the value of the stablecoin at the time of use differs from its value at the time of receipt. In theory, this difference may amount to only a few cents, but in practice it forces users to:
- track the cost basis of each unit of stablecoin,
- record gains or losses for every small transaction, and
- maintain detailed records for tax reporting purposes.
For individuals and businesses—especially retailers—this becomes a near “compliance nightmare.” Accounting costs and the risk of errors can far exceed the actual economic value of the transactions themselves. The draft PARITY Act openly acknowledges that such a tax system is unworkable in everyday life if the goal is to encourage innovation and the adoption of digital payment technologies.
The $200 exemption is therefore pragmatic rather than preferential. It does not incentivize profit-seeking through stablecoins—which are designed to maintain price stability—but instead removes formalistic tax obligations that offer little regulatory benefit while imposing significant administrative burdens. This approach is similar to small de minimis exemptions for foreign currency or cash transactions in many countries, where routine consumer spending is not treated as investment activity.
If enacted, the impact of this provision could extend far beyond taxation. Stablecoins would then have a clearer opportunity to function as originally intended: a fast, low-cost, and stable digital payment method that can be integrated into e-commerce, remittances, and cross-border payments. More importantly, it would help clearly separate crypto used for payments from crypto used for investment—laying the foundation for a more coherent and sustainable legal framework for the entire digital asset ecosystem.
2. Deferring taxes on staking and mining: rethinking “crypto income”
One of the most policy-significant aspects of the draft Digital Asset PARITY Act is its proposal to allow up to a five-year tax deferral on rewards from crypto staking and mining, before taxing them as ordinary income. Compared to the current approach—which treats staking or mining rewards as taxable income at the moment they are received—this represents a major shift in how the state understands the economic nature of blockchain activities.
Under the existing model, participants in staking or mining often face a paradox: they are required to pay taxes on “income” that has not yet been realized as cash, and whose value may fluctuate sharply after the moment of receipt. This not only creates financial risk, but also discourages those who help operate blockchain networks—the very individuals and organizations responsible for maintaining network security and stability.
The proposed tax deferral signals that lawmakers are beginning to draw a clearer distinction between two types of value in the crypto ecosystem. The first is technical or operational value—rewards earned in exchange for providing resources, locking up assets, or maintaining consensus mechanisms. The second is realized monetary income, when assets are converted into fiat currency or used for consumption. Taxing value immediately at the first stage may be defensible in theory, but it proves impractical in a volatile and often illiquid asset system.
Allowing tax deferral for up to five years offers a more balanced solution. Network participants gain flexibility to decide when to convert their rewards into cash, enabling better cash-flow management and tax planning. At the same time, the state retains its right to tax those rewards eventually, protecting public revenue without distorting the original economic incentives behind staking and mining.
More broadly, this approach reflects a maturing regulatory mindset. Rather than treating all crypto rewards as equivalent to wages or traditional investment income, the draft legislation acknowledges staking and mining as infrastructure activities of the digital economy. They more closely resemble the provision of technical services than short-term profit-seeking. Adjusting the timing of taxation therefore not only eases the burden on individuals, but also helps create a more stable legal environment for the long-term development of blockchain networks.
3. Bringing crypto into the traditional “tax arena”
Alongside proposals aimed at reducing compliance burdens, the Digital Asset PARITY Act also advances a parallel approach: standardizing the taxation of crypto according to principles that already exist within the traditional tax system. This is clearly reflected in a series of provisions related to wash sales, mark-to-market accounting, and the classification of crypto-related business activities.
First, extending wash sale rules to crypto is intended to close a legal gap that has existed for years. In securities markets, wash sales—selling an asset at a loss and quickly repurchasing it to realize a tax loss—are tightly restricted. Crypto, by contrast, has long fallen outside the scope of these rules, allowing some investors to exploit price volatility to optimize taxes in a technically legal but economically artificial way. Applying wash sale rules to crypto signals that the bill’s goal is not blanket leniency, but rather placing crypto under the same fairness standards as other asset classes.
At the same time, the bill allows professional traders to apply the mark-to-market method. This is a familiar accounting tool in traditional financial markets, enabling gains and losses to be recognized based on market prices at the end of a reporting period, rather than transaction by transaction. For high-frequency crypto traders, this approach simplifies tax reporting, reduces errors, and more accurately reflects real trading risk. More importantly, it places crypto on equal footing with securities and commodities, rather than treating it as a “special” asset requiring an entirely separate regime.
Another noteworthy aspect is how the bill addresses lending and staking activities at the institutional level. Clarifying that certain crypto lending activities are non-taxable, and that passive protocol-level staking by investment funds is not treated as a business activity, demonstrates an effort to clearly distinguish between passive investment and active commercial operations. This helps avoid over-taxation of investment structures that merely participate in blockchain mechanics, rather than directly providing services or generating revenue in the traditional sense.
Taken together, these proposals convey a consistent message: crypto is no longer viewed as an unmanageable exception, but as a legitimate asset class that should be integrated into the existing tax framework. Instead of creating an entirely new tax system—one that could easily become overlapping and unstable—the bill opts to “bring crypto onto familiar ground,” applying principles that have been tested and refined over decades.
This combination of reducing unnecessary burdens while tightening purely technical loopholes reflects a more mature regulatory mindset. In this approach, crypto is no longer a challenge outside the system, but a component of the financial ecosystem that must be standardized, supervised, and taxed in a coherent and consistent manner.
4. Long-term impact: legitimization without “leniency”
The key point to emphasize is that the Digital Asset PARITY Act does not represent a trend of “loosening taxes to appease the crypto market.” On the contrary, the bill reflects a balanced and selective approach: it reduces formalistic burdens that are difficult to enforce in real-world use, while tightening loopholes that could be exploited for tax avoidance. This combination makes clear that lawmakers’ goal is not to encourage speculation, but to build a fair, consistent, and sustainably enforceable tax framework.
From a macro-policy perspective, if enacted, the bill could become the foundation for the next phase of crypto regulation in the United States. Exempting small stablecoin transactions from taxation removes one of the biggest barriers to using crypto in everyday payments. Stablecoins would then have a real opportunity to be more deeply integrated into e-commerce, digital services, and cross-border payment models, rather than remaining confined to investment activity or experimental use cases.
For participants in staking and mining, a clearer and more practical tax framework significantly reduces legal risk. Instead of worrying about tax liabilities arising immediately upon receipt of rewards—regardless of price volatility—they can focus on their core role: maintaining and securing blockchain networks. Over the long term, this contributes to a more stable ecosystem, where infrastructure activities are treated as legitimate components of the digital economy rather than as a legal gray area.
At the market level, bringing crypto closer to traditional financial standards carries important institutional implications. When tax rules become clearer, more consistent, and more predictable, financial institutions, investment funds, and large enterprises gain the legal confidence to engage more deeply with the crypto market. This not only enhances transparency, but may also help reduce extreme volatility—one of the factors that has long caused crypto to be viewed as high-risk.
More importantly, the Digital Asset PARITY Act sends a long-term policy signal: crypto is being legitimized within the legal framework, but not given special treatment outside the shared principles of the tax system. This form of legitimization comes with responsibility, discipline, and standards—laying the groundwork for a more mature phase in the development of the U.S. digital asset market.
Conclusion
The Digital Asset PARITY Act can be seen as a policy signal marking a turning point in how the United States approaches crypto. Rather than remaining in a reactive mode—patching gaps with fragmented guidance and forcing an old tax framework onto a new asset class—the bill reflects an effort to design long-term rules based on how crypto is actually used in the digital economy.
Notably, the bill does not start from the assumption that crypto is a threat requiring absolute control, nor does it treat crypto as a sector deserving special favors. Instead, it places crypto in its proper context: a component of an emerging financial infrastructure that includes payments, investment, network operations, and derivative financial activities. This approach reflects an important shift in legislative thinking within the United States Congress—from short-term reactions to more forward-looking policy planning.
Although it remains only a draft and will undoubtedly face significant debate, the Digital Asset PARITY Act signals that crypto is no longer viewed as a fleeting phenomenon tied purely to speculation. Instead, it is acknowledged as an economic reality that needs to be:
- taxed in a reasonable and workable manner,
- regulated using familiar principles, with appropriate adjustments, and
- allowed to develop within a clear and stable legal framework.
In the long run, the bill’s greatest significance may lie not in any single provision, but in the broader policy message it sends. When laws begin to be designed around how technology functions in practice—rather than forcing technology to conform to outdated frameworks—it signals that crypto has entered a new phase: one in which it is seen as infrastructure, not experimentation.
If this trend continues, the Digital Asset PARITY Act—whether or not it is passed in its current form—could still become a foundational building block for how the United States shapes crypto policy over the next decade: more pragmatic, more mature, and oriented toward sustainability rather than short-term reactions to market volatility.
Disclaimer:The information provided here is for informational purposes only and should not be considered financial, investment, legal, or professional advice. Always conduct your own research, consider your financial situation, and, if necessary, consult with a licensed professional before making any decisions.
Join MEXC and Get up to $10,000 Bonus!
Sign Up
