The Keep Your Coins Act of 2025 seeks to constrain executive-branch discretion over how individuals use and hold convertible virtual currency. The bill focuses on retail, person-to-self uses: purchases of goods and services for the user’s own use and holding assets in self-hosted wallets.
The measure matters because it would remove a set of regulatory levers that federal agencies currently use—explicitly limiting agency authority rather than creating new federal consumer protections. That raises immediate questions about how the bill would interact with anti-money laundering, sanctions, and other statutory enforcement tools that rely on agency conditions or restrictions.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill prohibits the head of any Federal agency from prohibiting, restricting, or otherwise impairing a covered user’s ability to use convertible virtual currency to purchase goods or services for personal use, and from restricting self-custody through a self‑hosted wallet. It anchors the definition of “convertible virtual currency” to the language in 31 C.F.R. §1010.100 (or successor regulations).
Who It Affects
Federal agencies and their heads are the regulated actors; the operative protections apply to individual users who obtain convertible virtual currency to purchase goods or services for their own use. Secondary effects will touch custodial exchanges, payment processors, and merchants that accept virtual currency.
Why It Matters
By curbing agency-level conditions on use and custody, the bill reshapes where regulatory friction can be placed—shifting compliance pressure back onto statutory law, regulated financial firms, and law enforcement rather than on agency policy decisions. It also puts self-custody practices at the center of federal policy debates over consumer autonomy versus illicit finance risks.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill directs that no head of a Federal agency may prevent or otherwise make harder for an individual who is buying for themselves to use convertible virtual currency to purchase goods or services. That prohibition specifically extends to actions that would impair the user’s ability to hold and transact with digital assets using a self-hosted wallet — a digital interface where the owner retains independent control of the assets.
Key terms come from the bill’s definitions. ‘‘Convertible virtual currency’’ is defined by reference to existing federal regulatory text (31 C.F.R. §1010.100 or its successor), which ties the concept to a medium that functions as or substitutes for currency even if it lacks legal tender status. A ‘‘covered user’’ is any person who obtains such an asset to buy goods or services on their own behalf, and the definition explicitly ignores how the user obtained the asset.
The bill’s ‘‘self-hosted wallet’’ definition centers on control: the wallet must secure and transfer assets while leaving independent control with the owner.Practically, the bill narrows the posture of executive agencies: it does not create a licensing regime or new federal consumer-rights enforcement mechanism, nor does it direct agencies to take affirmative steps to facilitate merchant acceptance. Instead, it removes an option—agency-imposed restrictions or conditions—used to shape behavior in areas that intersect with federal programs and regulatory implementation.
Because the bill operates by command to agency heads, its immediate legal effect would be on agency policies, contract terms tied to federal funding, and internal agency rules that condition benefits or access on not using convertible virtual currency or on using custodial services.Notably absent from the text are express carve-outs or instructions about how the prohibition interacts with other federal statutes and authorities that compel restrictions—such as sanctions administered by the Office of Foreign Assets Control, criminal forfeiture authorities, or Bank Secrecy Act obligations enforced by Treasury and FinCEN. The bill also contains no express enforcement provision (civil penalties, private right of action, or an administrative remedy), leaving open how compliance disputes would be litigated or resolved.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill directs that the head of a Federal agency may not prohibit, restrict, or otherwise impair a covered user’s ability to use convertible virtual currency to purchase goods or services for personal use.
The statute explicitly protects self-custody by barring agency actions that would prevent a person from using a self-hosted wallet to secure or transfer convertible virtual currency.
The bill defines “convertible virtual currency” by reference to 31 C.F.R. §1010.100 (or successor regulations), linking the statutory term to an existing regulatory definition rather than creating a standalone statutory taxonomy.
A “covered user” is defined broadly to include any person who obtains convertible virtual currency to buy goods or services for their own use, and the definition does not condition coverage on how the user acquired the asset.
The text contains no express carve-outs for sanctions, AML/BSA enforcement, national security, or other federal statutory restrictions, nor does it create an enforcement mechanism or specify remedies for violations by agencies.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
A single line gives the Act its public name: the “Keep Your Coins Act of 2025.” This is purely nominal, but the choice of title signals the bill’s focus on individual custody and consumer-level spending rather than commercial or institutional activity.
Prohibition on agency restrictions
This subsection is the operative command: the head of a Federal agency ‘‘may not prohibit, restrict, or otherwise impair’’ certain uses and custody choices by covered users. Mechanically, that language constrains executive-branch policy tools—agency rulemaking, internal guidance, procurement and grant conditions, and program-level eligibility rules—because it targets the decisionmakers who direct those levers. The scope of the verbs ‘‘prohibit, restrict, or otherwise impair’’ is broad and could sweep in indirect measures such as contractual requirements or program terms that discourage or make it impractical to use convertible virtual currency or self-hosted wallets.
Convertible virtual currency defined by reference
The bill does not craft an original statutory definition; it imports the concept by pointing to the language in 31 C.F.R. §1010.100 (or successor regulations). That choice ties the statutory meaning to Treasury’s regulatory framing, which can be updated administratively. Relying on a cross-reference reduces definitional work in the statute but creates dependence on an external regulatory scheme that has its own interpretive history and change path.
Covered user: broad retail focus
By defining ‘‘covered user’’ as any person who obtains convertible virtual currency to purchase goods or services on their own behalf, the bill intentionally centers retail, non-commercial spending. The ‘‘without regard to the method in which such covered user obtained such convertible virtual currency’’ clause makes coverage agnostic to source — a drafting choice that widens coverage but also raises legal and practical friction where funds may be illicit or subject to forfeiture.
Self-hosted wallet: control as the touchstone
The bill’s self-hosted wallet definition is functional: it describes an interface used to secure and transfer assets where the owner retains independent control. That steers legal focus to control and key custody rather than to particular software, hardware, or technical standards. The definition will matter in disputes about whether a particular arrangement (for example, a custodial wallet with optional user keys) qualifies as self-hosted and therefore falls within the protection.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Finance across all five countries.
Explore Finance in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Retail crypto holders who choose to self-custody: the bill protects individuals who hold private keys and spend crypto directly, reducing the risk that federal agencies can bar their retail purchases or force custodial arrangements. This strengthens legal footing for people who prioritize private key control and peer-to-peer spending.
- Self‑hosted wallet developers and noncustodial infrastructure providers: companies and open‑source projects that build wallet software could see reduced regulatory friction when users transact for personal use because the bill shields self‑custody as a protected option. That may lower the regulatory risk for wallets that emphasize user control.
- Merchants and payment processors enabling crypto acceptance for retail sales: by limiting agency ability to impose prohibitions or restrictions, the bill may reduce the chance that federally directed constraints will disincentivize merchants from accepting convertible virtual currency, especially in sectors that rely on federal contracting or certification.
- Privacy and civil‑liberties organizations: groups advocating for financial autonomy and against mandatory custodial arrangements gain a statutory backing for arguments that users should retain control over digital assets without agency interference.
Who Bears the Cost
- Federal agencies (e.g., Treasury, FinCEN, agencies that run grant or benefits programs): the bill removes a policy tool those agencies use to attach conditions to federal programs, increasing operational and legal challenges when agencies attempt to achieve policy goals that rely on conditioning behavior.
- Law enforcement and sanctions enforcement: officials who use agency-level restrictions to enforce sanctions or block illicit flows could see reduced operational flexibility, creating potential gaps in tools available to disrupt criminal networks or sanctioned parties.
- Custodial exchanges and regulated financial institutions: while not directly constrained by the bill, these firms may face greater compliance complexity because agency-level prohibitions that previously limited certain user behaviors could no longer be relied upon; conversely, they may bear increased AML/KYC obligations if agencies shift enforcement emphasis to statutory tools applied against intermediaries.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma the bill exposes is between individual autonomy over digital assets—allowing people to hold private keys and spend crypto without agency-imposed limits—and the government’s interest in preventing illicit finance, enforcing sanctions, and protecting consumers, which often depends on restrictions, monitoring, or intermediated custody; the bill solves one priority by narrowing agency tools but simultaneously constrains legitimate enforcement and protection mechanisms.
The bill’s broad prohibition language (‘‘prohibit, restrict, or otherwise impair’’) will require interpretation in practice. Agencies may challenge narrow definitions of ‘‘impair’’ or distinguish between direct bans and indirect regulatory conditions (for example, contract terms tied to federal funds).
Because the statute targets agency heads, litigation is likely to center on whether specific agency actions amount to a covered impairment and whether the judiciary will defer to agency arguments about necessary restrictions for statutory compliance.
The text’s reliance on an external regulatory definition (31 C.F.R. §1010.100 or successor) and the omission of express carve‑outs for sanctions, AML/BSA enforcement, or national security creates real ambiguity. If an agency contends that statute-based duties require restrictions (for example, blocking transactions tied to sanctioned entities), the bill’s silence about precedence and interaction with other statutes leaves unresolved questions about which authority controls.
The lack of an explicit enforcement mechanism—no private right of action, civil penalty, or administrative sanction against agencies for noncompliance—also raises practical questions about how the prohibition will be enforced and who has standing to challenge agency conduct.
Finally, the bill prioritizes custody autonomy without addressing consumer protection trade-offs. Full self-custody eliminates many counterparty risks but also removes intermediary-driven fraud protections, recovery options, and anti‑fraud controls.
The statutory protection of self-hosted wallets therefore shifts certain risks to individual users and creates externalities for payment ecosystems and law enforcement that are not resolved within the bill’s text.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.