On June 10, 2026, the industry was simultaneously attacked from several seemingly unrelated fronts: In Brussels, EU's High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Kaja Kallas revealed that the 21st round of sanctions against Russia would for the first time specifically name 11 crypto platforms, officially including crypto services on the high-risk list of “sanctions evasion channels”; in Moscow, Deputy Finance Minister Ivan Chebeskov proposed that only a limited number of legal entities would be allowed to legitimately use non-custodial wallets, leaving no room for ordinary individuals to self-custody, while the State Duma passed the cryptocurrency tax reform bill in the first reading, clearly outlining the tax base as “positive balance after income minus expenses,” tightening self-custody on one side and attempting to recognize the existence of this asset through taxation on the other; in the Persian Gulf, the pressure of confrontation appeared in a more direct manner — the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps announced that it would launch drone attacks on the U.S. Fifth Fleet stationed in Bahrain and warned of a harsher response if the United States continued hostile actions, with details yet to be fully disclosed, but sufficient to evoke imaginings of the next round of sanctions and financial blockades; across the ocean in the United States, the compliance prediction market platform Kalshi, previously facing regulatory scrutiny over its election markets, planned to require users participating in sensitive event markets to disclose their employer information, bringing “who you are betting for” to the forefront, turning prediction markets into a new battleground for privacy and compliance. As the sanctions list, non-custodial restrictions, and employer disclosures approach simultaneously, the crypto world is forced to confront a sharper question: in an era intertwined with regulation and geopolitical conflict, where can it still extend its boundaries.
EU Targets 11 Platforms: Sanctions Point Towards Crypto Channels
After imposing 20 rounds of sanctions on Russia, Brussels began to acknowledge an awkward reality: despite layers of blockage on traditional financial channels, crypto assets are still being used by certain entities as a tool to circumvent restrictions. EU’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Kaja Kallas signaled around June 2026 that the 21st round of sanctions against Russia would include 11 crypto platforms within the scope of restrictions, marking the first time that sanctions tools explicitly extend to “on-chain access.” However, unlike previous direct labeling of banks, this time the list and enforcement details have not been made public, with potentially affected platforms and users only able to assess their risk exposure in a non-transparent shadow.
Mechanically, these types of sanctions usually revolve around several points: restricting specific services, strengthening compliance obligations, and imposing additional constraints on affiliated entities. Once implemented, the locked platforms are likely to be required to carry out stricter screening and blocking of Russian-related entities, raising the identity verification and transaction review intensity for all users; accounts in gray areas would face the potential of being “collaterally damaged.” For on-chain activities, tightening at the entry point means that cross-border transfers and on-chain interactions will incur higher compliance friction costs, and participants “not on the list” must also learn to operate within a more closely monitored network, thus turning the EU's 21st round of sanctions into a new battleground for crypto channels.
Russia Limits Use of Non-Custodial Wallets While Advancing Tax Reforms
At the same time the EU draws crypto channels into the sanctions map, Russia chooses to “tighten the entry” through another set of measures. Deputy Finance Minister Ivan Chebeskov stated that in the future, only a limited number of legal entities may be allowed to legitimately use non-custodial wallets, while retail investors are excluded. This effectively shrinks self-custody from a universally optional user right to a “license-like privilege” for a few institutions, pushing the vast majority of individual users back into more easily monitored and frozen custody scenarios. For on-chain behavior, the official stance of “compliant self-custody” is highly concentrated in the hands of a few entities; ordinary users wishing to self-custody must either accept identity exposure and high compliance costs, or navigate in a gray area, bearing uncertain regulatory risks.
Alongside this trend of tightening self-custody, the State Duma also passed the cryptocurrency tax reform bill in the first reading, clearly defining the tax base as “positive balance after income minus expenses,” attempting to capture crypto gains using traditional tax vocabulary. The signal from this design is very direct: as long as it can be identified as “income,” it should enter the fiscal view and be included in the existing tax framework. Thus, Russian regulation sketches two interlocking lines on the same map: one line restricts individuals from directly holding the private keys to on-chain assets, while the other acknowledges this gain's “legal existence” to some extent by clarifying the tax base and increasing fiscal revenue. With non-custodial wallets only open to a limited number of legal entities and the specifics of the tax reform and its timeline still unclear, future on-chain activities in the country are likely to be further squeezed at both ends — one end being highly compliant, institution-centered on-chain trading models, and the other being more concealed, more decentralized self-custody practices, with the gray area in between becoming the main space for ongoing regulation and user struggle.
Crypto Risk Narratives Under Iranian Drone Attacks
As Russia redraws the lines between taxation and self-custody, another front comes from the Middle East. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps announced a drone attack on the U.S. Fifth Fleet stationed in Bahrain, and issued a public warning that if the United States continued its hostile actions, it would respond with “a harsher response.” The specific losses and casualty information from the attack have not been fully disclosed to the public, and opinions on the scale and probability of escalation still diverge in the public sphere, but such incidents, already heavily layered with sanctions and military confrontation in the Iranian issue, are nearly destined to be quickly incorporated into the risk narrative framework of finance and compliance.
Iran has long been under stringent sanctions, and in the public statements of Western regulatory bodies, financial activities, cross-border settlements, and value transfer tools related to Iran have always been placed in a highly sensitive position, and crypto assets naturally fall into the observation list of “potential tools for circumventing sanctions.” On the same timeline, the EU prepares to restrict 11 crypto platforms in the 21st round of sanctions against Russia, while Russia plans to open non-custodial wallets only to a few legal entities. These seemingly disparate measures are strung together by geopolitical conflict into a logical chain: from Russia to Iran, from Europe to the Middle East, every security incident could justify “further tightening and monitoring of crypto-related activities,” pushing parties to apply more detailed and wider regulatory pressure on on-chain behaviors and self-custody practices.
Employer Disclosure Controversy After Election Turbulence
On the timeline of synchronized tightening of sanctions and regulation, the domestic compliance prediction platform Kalshi in the United States has chosen to control risks from another direction. Previously, its design surrounding election-related markets had already led regulators and public opinion to have concerns about “someone trading with insider political information,” with worries of insider trading and market manipulation looming overhead. To project a “I have fulfilled my duty” posture in betting on sensitive events, Kalshi plans to require users participating in such markets to disclose their employer information, in order to mark out groups that might have access to insider information at the account level, and to prove to regulators when necessary that the platform has the capability to distinguish between ordinary speculators and high-risk information holders. However, the effective date of this new regulation, which specific markets it applies to, and how employer information will be collected and used before and after trading are still not publicly disclosed, thus making the truly controversial aspects a vague yet pressing outline.
In the eyes of supporters, this “employer disclosure” trades a small amount of privacy for a manageable systemic risk: the platform already operates based on real-name registration and compliance frameworks, adding an employer field seems to trade for higher transparency and lower insider trading pressure. But opponents see it as another extending monitoring clue — once employer information is linked to specific betting events, certain professions and certain institutional employees will naturally be viewed as “potential suspects,” with the platform also implicitly taking on heavier scrutiny obligations. In sharp contrast is the decentralized prediction market on-chain: it is difficult, if not impossible, to enforce similar “employer information disclosure” requirements at the protocol level, most participants just appear with address identities, and contracts only care about whether they are betting within the rules rather than where they work. Thus, the paths of compliance represented by Kalshi and the open solutions on-chain diverge — the former strengthens identity and information disclosure to align with regulation, while the latter inherently resists such granular monitoring in terms of technical structure; how these two models survive under future policy environments will become a clear dividing line in the long-term game of prediction markets.
Will the Struggle Between Compliance and Decentralization Escalate?
When looking at the EU, Russia, Iranian storm clouds, and Kalshi on the same time frame, it becomes difficult to tell the crypto story as a singular “tech revolution”; it is in a phase of being pressed and reshaped by multiple powers simultaneously: The EU prepares to directly limit 11 crypto platforms in the 21st round of sanctions against Russia, bringing cross-border crypto services into the sanctions toolbox; Russia is pushing for “positive balance after income minus expenses” as a tax base for crypto in the State Duma, trying to acknowledge such assets by using the tax system, while simultaneously proposing to the Ministry of Finance to only allow a few legal entities to use non-custodial wallets, shutting retail out of the protocol layer; Iran's drone attack on the U.S. Fifth Fleet in Bahrain brings crypto back into the sensitive context of sanctions and conflict; while Kalshi's plan to require employer information disclosure from sensitive prediction market users reflects a heightened vigilance against information asymmetry and insider risks on a micro-compliance level. Different jurisdictions are increasingly pursuing two divergent paths: one is bringing crypto income into the tax and regulatory view, attempting to “tame” it within the rules framework; the other is tightening self-custody and cross-border use, treating individual addresses as risk sources that must be restricted. Moving forward, it is essential to keep a close watch on the specific implementation terms targeting 11 platforms in the EU's 21st round of sanctions, the final version of Russia's wallet access and tax reform, and the real effects of Kalshi’s employer disclosure plan in practice, as these elements will determine whether the struggle between compliance and decentralization becomes a negotiable middle ground or pushes towards a more acute and divided global landscape.
Join our community, let’s discuss, and become stronger together!
AiCoin Exclusive Hyperliquid Benefits: https://app.hyperliquid.xyz/join/AICOIN88
AiCoin Exclusive Aster Benefits: https://www.asterdex.com/zh-CN/referral/9C50e2
On-chain Telegram Community: https://t.me/AiCoinWhaleData
On-chain Community: https://www.aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=N6OVMor5g
AiCoin On-chain Twitter: https://x.com/aicoinwhaledata
免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。
