Cryptoassets Regulatory Intelligence cryptoassets.gi
US-OH · run crypto-2026-08-06 v13.3.0
content: ai_generated 12 sources retrieved model claude-sonnet-5 ·

United States – Ohio

US-OH schema crypto-v2.0.0 trajectory: not recordedin transitionoverlaps: FIM, WPM

Last updated · 8 categories · 25 sourced findings · 12 sources in the cumulative register

8Categoriesbaseline.
25Findings.claims[]
0Tier-1 sourcesrun_metadata.t1_source_count
Confidence mix (sums to 8 rendered categories; click to filter)
No categories moved this cycle.

Jurisdiction brief

No content recorded at this JID path.

8 of 8 categories
Signal
Density

Selections OR within a group, AND across groups. Press / to search.

#

Ohio has no bespoke crypto-asset licensing statute. Virtual-currency exchange and custody businesses fall under Ohio's general money-transmitter licensing regime, administered via the Nationwide Multistate Licensing System (NMLS), with the state banking/financial-institutions regulator as licensing authority. No independently verified Ohio Revised Code citation or crypto-specific carve-out/exemption within the money-transmitter statute could be confirmed from available sources; this is flagged for primary-source escalation per the injected seed's caution flag.

Absence reason not determinableNo sub-brief exists and the JID records no gap or review marker explaining why. The renderer will not invent a reason.

No periodic updates recorded against this sub-brief.

Sources and findings (3)
  1. T?source not recordedM4bindingin force
  2. T?source not recordedM3bindingin force
  3. T?source not recordedM3non-binding

#

Ohio has not enacted a state-specific token taxonomy. Token characterisation for securities purposes is governed by federal SEC/CFTC jurisdiction. In March 2026 the SEC issued an interpretive release applying the Howey test to establish a crypto-asset taxonomy (digital securities, payment stablecoins, digital commodities, digital collectibles, digital tools), and in March 2025 SEC staff clarified that proof-of-work mining does not itself trigger federal securities registration. These federal determinations apply to Ohio market participants by preemption; no Ohio Division of Securities crypto-specific guidance was identified.

Absence reason not determinableNo sub-brief exists and the JID records no gap or review marker explaining why. The renderer will not invent a reason.

No periodic updates recorded against this sub-brief.

Sources and findings (3)
  1. T?source not recordedM4non-binding
  2. T?source not recordedM3non-binding
  3. T?source not recordedM3non-binding

#

Ohio has no in-force statutory framework specific to staking, DeFi lending, DEX operation, node operation, or validator activity. The pending Ohio Blockchain Basics Act (HB 116), passed by the Ohio House in June 2025, would provide protections for crypto mining businesses against discriminatory local government action, but the bill remains before the Ohio Senate and is not yet law. Federally, SEC staff have clarified that proof-of-work mining does not trigger securities registration.

Absence reason not determinableNo sub-brief exists and the JID records no gap or review marker explaining why. The renderer will not invent a reason.

No periodic updates recorded against this sub-brief.

Sources and findings (8)
  1. T?source not recordedM4non-binding
  2. T?source not recordedM3non-binding
  3. T?source not recordedM2non-binding
  4. T?source not recordedM2non-binding
  5. T?source not recordedM2non-binding
  6. T?source not recordedM2non-binding
  7. T?source not recordedM2non-binding
  8. T?source not recordedM3bindingin force

#

Ohio has no state-specific stablecoin issuance, reserve, or redemption statute. The field is governed by the federal GENIUS Act, signed into law July 18, 2025, which establishes reserve-backing, redemption-at-par, and disclosure requirements for payment stablecoins nationally, including for Ohio-based issuers and consumers. As of mid-2026, federal regulators (OCC, FDIC, NCUA, Treasury, Federal Reserve) had missed the Act's one-year rulemaking deadline, leaving final implementing rules on reserves, custody, and AML/sanctions compliance still in proposal form, with a statutory effective date no later than January 18, 2027.

Absence reason not determinableNo sub-brief exists and the JID records no gap or review marker explaining why. The renderer will not invent a reason.

No periodic updates recorded against this sub-brief.

Sources and findings (3)
  1. T?source not recordedM4bindingenacted not yet effective
  2. T?source not recordedM4non-binding
  3. T?source not recordedM3non-binding

#

Ohio has no bespoke crypto consumer-protection statute covering marketing restrictions, custody segregation, or suitability specific to digital assets; general Ohio consumer-fraud and securities anti-fraud enforcement apply by default. National FBI Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) data show crypto-related fraud losses reaching $11 billion in 2025 (a 22% year-on-year increase) with over 181,000 complaints, and Ohio has seen enforcement activity against crypto investment fraud, illustrating reliance on general fraud statutes rather than a dedicated crypto consumer-protection framework.

Absence reason not determinableNo sub-brief exists and the JID records no gap or review marker explaining why. The renderer will not invent a reason.

No periodic updates recorded against this sub-brief.

Sources and findings (3)
  1. T?source not recordedM4non-binding
  2. T?source not recordedM3non-binding
  3. T?source not recordedM3non-binding

#

Ohio has no currently enacted crypto-specific tax statute. Ohio previously permitted businesses to remit state taxes in bitcoin via the OhioCrypto.com program launched in late 2018, but the program was discontinued after a newly elected State Treasurer halted it. The pending Ohio Blockchain Basics Act (HB 116), passed by the Ohio House in June 2025, would exempt crypto transactions under $200 from state capital-gains tax and bar local governments from imposing additional taxes on crypto payments, but remains before the Ohio Senate and is not yet law.

Absence reason not determinableNo sub-brief exists and the JID records no gap or review marker explaining why. The renderer will not invent a reason.

No periodic updates recorded against this sub-brief.

Sources and findings (3)
  1. T?source not recordedM2non-binding
  2. T?source not recordedM4non-binding
  3. T?source not recordedM3non-binding

#

Ohio has no distinct state-level cross-border crypto-transfer regime. Cross-border transfers conducted by Ohio-based money transmitters and virtual-currency businesses are governed by the federal Bank Secrecy Act / FinCEN framework, including the Funds Travel Rule for convertible-virtual-currency transmittals and OFAC sanctions screening, applied uniformly regardless of state.

Absence reason not determinableNo sub-brief exists and the JID records no gap or review marker explaining why. The renderer will not invent a reason.

No periodic updates recorded against this sub-brief.

Sources and findings (2)
  1. T?source not recordedM4bindingin force
  2. T?source not recordedM2non-binding

#

Crypto AML/CFT obligations applicable to Ohio-based virtual-currency businesses (customer due diligence, travel rule, SAR/STR filing, sanctions screening, recordkeeping, risk assessment) arise under the federal Bank Secrecy Act / FinCEN money-services-business regime. Per fleet module-subscription doctrine, crypto subscribes to the Financial Integrity Module (FIM) for aml_ctf content; this baseline therefore does not duplicate aml_cft_regime claims and defers to the FIM feed for substantive AML/CFT findings.

Absence reason not determinableNo sub-brief exists and the JID records no gap or review marker explaining why. The renderer will not invent a reason.

No periodic updates recorded against this sub-brief.

No categories match.

Filters combine as OR inside a group and AND across groups.

Editorial metadata

Provenance only. Nothing below gates publication or affects the render.

Editorial metadata for United States – Ohio
FieldValue
trust.lawyer_review.statusnever_reviewed
trust.lawyer_review.reviewernot recorded
trust.content_sourceai_generated

Provenance and declared absence

Disclosure model: module cards load OPEN; standing positions render in full; sub-briefs and jurisdiction briefs load as a clamped teaser with an explicit “read full” control carrying the true word count; earlier updates stay collapsed behind a counted summary. No text is hidden without disclosing how much of it there is.

Sentinel-fed modules receive no special rendering treatment. sentinel_feed is an attribution chip only: it does not suppress content, does not generate an absence reason code, and does not exclude the module from any count, filter, search index or export on this page.

Family taxonomy is renderer-level presentation config, not a JID field. Colour is always duplicated in text and is never the sole carrier of meaning.

Suppressed by doctrine: derived risk score; per-module RAG traffic light; derived_scores = {}.

Band honesty: uncertainty bands are computed against a frozen build clock of 2026-08-17. A year-precision row is never promoted into a tighter band.

Orphan deltas: 0 cycle_delta row(s) target non-module objects and are listed in the rail rather than attached to a card.

Envelope: baseline resolved at jurisdiction_json.baseline; 8 module(s), 25 finding(s), 12 source(s) in the cumulative register.