← News Topics
Intermediate

Cryptocurrency: One Technology, Different Rules

Day 2 — Why Do Countries Have Such Different Rules for Cryptocurrency?

暗号資産：一つの技術、異なるルール ― 第2日：なぜ国によって暗号資産のルールはこれほど違うのか

9 November 2026

A world desk map with country folders, a smartphone showing abstract blockchain payment icons, and a digital currency card suggesting different national crypto rules

Imagine running a small café in El Salvador in 2021. If a customer wanted to pay for coffee with Bitcoin, the law generally required you to accept it, provided you had the necessary technology. El Salvador had become the first country to recognize Bitcoin as legal tender, alongside the US dollar. Interestingly, the country had already adopted the US dollar as its main currency in 2001, giving up control over its own monetary policy. Unlike Japan or China, it no longer had a widely used national currency of its own to protect. The government hoped that Bitcoin would attract investment and make financial services more accessible. But everyday use remained limited. In 2025, El Salvador rolled back the requirement, allowing businesses to decide for themselves whether to accept Bitcoin. The country had not banned the cryptocurrency. It had simply stopped forcing businesses to use it.

2021年のエルサルバドルで小さなカフェを経営しているところを想像してください。客がビットコインでコーヒー代を払いたければ、必要な技術がある場合、法律はおおむねそれを受け入れるよう求めていました。エルサルバドルは、米ドルとともにビットコインを法定通貨として認めた最初の国になっていました。興味深いことに、同国はすでに2001年に米ドルを主要通貨として採用し、自国の金融政策のコントロールを手放していました。日本や中国と違い、守るべき広く使われる自国通貨はもはやありませんでした。政府は、ビットコインが投資を呼び込み、金融サービスをより利用しやすくすることを期待していました。しかし日常の利用は限られたままでした。2025年、エルサルバドルはその要件を撤回し、ビットコインを受け入れるかどうかを事業者が自ら決められるようにしました。同国は暗号資産を禁止したわけではありません。事業者にそれを使うよう強制するのをやめただけです。

El Salvador’s experience reveals an important distinction. Owning cryptocurrency, trading it through an exchange, and using it to pay for goods are three different activities. A government may permit one while restricting another. Recognizing a currency as legal tender goes further by giving it a special legal status. But even that status does not guarantee that people will use it. In El Salvador, Bitcoin payments had failed to catch on widely, despite government promotion. The law could require businesses to accept Bitcoin, but it could not make customers prefer it to dollars.

エルサルバドルの経験は、重要な区別を明らかにしています。暗号資産を所有すること、取引所を通じて売買すること、財の支払いに使うことは、三つの異なる活動です。政府は一つを認めつつ、別のものを制限することがあります。通貨を法定通貨として認めることは、特別な法的地位を与えることでさらに一歩進みます。しかし、その地位さえ、人々がそれを使うことを保証しません。エルサルバドルでは、政府の推進にもかかわらず、ビットコイン決済は広く定着しませんでした。法律は事業者にビットコインの受け入れを求められても、客にドルよりそれを好むようにはできなかったのです。

China has taken a much stricter approach. In February 2026, Chinese authorities reinforced their prohibition on cryptocurrency-related financial businesses. Services involving Bitcoin trading, exchanges, and payments remain largely off-limits. The government argues that these activities threaten financial stability and create opportunities for speculation and fraud. Yet China is actively expanding the digital yuan, or e-CNY. Unlike Bitcoin, which operates without a central issuing authority, the digital yuan is part of China’s official currency system. The difference is revealing: China is not rejecting digital money itself. It wants digital payments to operate within a system controlled and supervised by the state.

中国ははるかに厳しい取り組みをとっています。2026年2月、中国当局は暗号資産関連の金融事業への禁止を強化しました。ビットコインの取引、取引所、支払いに関わるサービスは、おおむね立ち入り禁止のままです。政府は、これらの活動が金融安定を脅かし、投機と詐欺の機会を生むと主張します。それでも中国は、デジタル人民元、すなわちe-CNYを積極的に広げています。中央の発行当局なしで動くビットコインと違い、デジタル人民元は中国の公式通貨システムの一部です。その違いは示唆に富みます。中国はデジタルマネーそのものを拒否しているのではありません。デジタル決済が、国家が管理し監督するシステムのなかで動くことを望んでいるのです。

Japan takes a different approach. People can buy and sell cryptocurrencies through registered exchanges, which must follow financial regulations. However, Bitcoin is not legal tender, and shops are not required to accept it. Japan’s Financial Services Agency also warns that cryptocurrency prices can fall sharply and that registration does not guarantee the value of the assets being traded. In other words, allowing cryptocurrency businesses to operate does not mean that the government stands behind the investments they offer. Japan has chosen to regulate the companies handling digital assets rather than prohibit the market or promote Bitcoin as national money.

日本は異なる取り組みをとります。人々は、金融規制に従わなければならない登録済みの取引所を通じて暗号資産を売買できます。しかしビットコインは法定通貨ではなく、店はそれを受け入れる義務はありません。日本の金融庁はまた、暗号資産の価格が急落しうること、登録が取引される資産の価値を保証しないことも警告しています。言い換えれば、暗号資産ビジネスの運営を認めることは、政府がそれらが提供する投資を保証することを意味しません。日本は、市場を禁止したりビットコインを国家の通貨として推進したりするのではなく、デジタル資産を扱う企業を規制する道を選びました。

Pakistan, as we saw in Day 1, represents another path. Its government moved from restrictions on financial institutions toward a licensing system in 2026, partly because cryptocurrency trading had already become widespread. The new regulator requires exchanges to meet standards for customer protection, security, and preventing financial crime. But even licensed exchanges cannot claim that the government guarantees their cryptocurrencies. Instead of trying to keep cryptocurrency outside the financial system, Pakistan now wants exchanges to operate legally under government supervision.

第1日で見たように、パキスタンは別の道を示しています。同国政府は、暗号資産取引がすでに広まりつつあったことも一因として、金融機関への制限から2026年の認可制度へと移りました。新しい規制当局は、取引所に顧客保護、セキュリティ、金融犯罪の防止についての基準を満たすよう求めています。しかし認可された取引所でさえ、政府が自社の暗号資産を保証すると主張することはできません。暗号資産を金融システムの外に置こうとするのではなく、パキスタンは今、取引所が政府の監督のもとで合法的に事業することを望んでいます。

These differences reflect more than attitudes toward technology. China places great importance on controlling its monetary system. Japan permits private cryptocurrency markets but emphasizes regulation and consumer protection. Pakistan sees potential benefits in international payments, while El Salvador’s experience shows the limits of promoting a currency through legislation alone. Every approach involves a trade-off between financial freedom, economic opportunity, consumer safety, and government control. There is no one-size-fits-all solution. The real difference between these countries is not simply whether cryptocurrency is legal. It is how much freedom they give people and businesses to use it, and how much risk they are prepared to accept.

これらの違いは、技術への態度以上のものを反映しています。中国は通貨システムの管理を非常に重視します。日本は私的な暗号資産市場を認めつつ、規制と消費者保護を強調します。パキスタンは国際支払いに潜在的な利益を見いだし、エルサルバドルの経験は、立法だけで通貨を推進することの限界を示します。どの取り組みにも、金融の自由、経済的機会、消費者の安全、政府の管理のあいだのトレードオフがあります。万能の解決策はありません。これらの国の本当の違いは、暗号資産が合法かどうかだけではありません。人々と事業者がそれを使う自由をどれだけ与え、どれだけのリスクを受け入れる用意があるかなのです。

Vocabulary

  1. legal tender — Money that is officially recognized by law as acceptable for paying debts and financial obligations. Example: The Japanese yen is legal tender in Japan, but Bitcoin does not have the same legal status.
  2. roll back — To reduce or reverse a policy, restriction, or change that was previously introduced. Example: The government decided to roll back the requirement after businesses complained about the additional costs.
  3. catch on — To become popular or widely accepted, especially after being introduced as something new. Example: Mobile payments were slow to catch on at first, but they became common as more shops began accepting them.
  4. off-limits — Not allowed to be used, entered, or accessed because of rules or restrictions. Example: Certain financial products are off-limits to ordinary investors because of their high risks.
  5. revealing — Showing or making clear something important that was not previously obvious. Example: The survey produced a revealing result: many customers preferred simpler services over newer, more advanced technology.
  6. registered — Officially recorded or recognized by an authority after meeting certain legal or administrative requirements. Example: Investors should check whether a financial service provider is registered with the appropriate regulator.
  7. stand behind — To officially support something or accept responsibility for it, especially by providing a guarantee. Example: The government does not stand behind private investments simply because the companies offering them are licensed.
  8. trade-off — A situation in which gaining one benefit requires accepting a disadvantage or giving up another benefit. Example: There is often a trade-off between making financial transactions convenient and applying strict security checks.
  9. one-size-fits-all — Intended to work for everyone or every situation without considering individual differences. Example: A one-size-fits-all approach to financial regulation may not work because countries face different economic challenges.

Comprehension Questions

  1. What was unusual about El Salvador’s monetary situation when it adopted Bitcoin as legal tender in 2021?
    1. It had already replaced the US dollar with Bitcoin.
    2. It was the only country in the world without any form of legal tender.
    3. It had adopted the US dollar as its main currency in 2001 and no longer controlled an independent national monetary policy.
    4. It had prohibited all digital payments since 2001.

    2021年にビットコインを法定通貨として採用したとき、エルサルバドルの通貨状況で異例だったのは何ですか？

  2. Why did El Salvador change its Bitcoin law in 2025?
    1. Bitcoin had become illegal throughout Central America.
    2. Bitcoin payments had not become widely popular, and the government removed the requirement for businesses to accept them.
    3. The government decided to replace Bitcoin with the Chinese digital yuan.
    4. All businesses had already stopped accepting US dollars.

    エルサルバドルが2025年にビットコイン法を変えたのはなぜですか？

  3. What does China’s development of the digital yuan suggest about its approach to digital money?
    1. China distinguishes between privately operated cryptocurrencies and digital currency controlled by the state.
    2. China plans to make Bitcoin its official national currency.
    3. China has decided to allow all cryptocurrency exchanges to operate freely.
    4. China believes that digital payment technology has no economic value.

    中国のデジタル人民元の開発は、デジタルマネーへの取り組みについて何を示唆していますか？

  4. What does registration of a cryptocurrency exchange mean in Japan?
    1. The government guarantees that investors cannot lose money.
    2. The exchange can issue Japanese yen as a private currency.
    3. Every cryptocurrency traded on the exchange becomes legal tender.
    4. The exchange is permitted to operate under financial regulations, but the government does not guarantee the value of its cryptocurrencies.

    日本で暗号資産取引所の登録は何を意味しますか？

  5. What is the main difference between Pakistan’s earlier restrictions and its approach in 2026?
    1. Pakistan has replaced its national currency with Bitcoin.
    2. Pakistan is moving toward allowing cryptocurrency exchanges to operate under a government licensing and supervision system.
    3. Pakistan has prohibited all cryptocurrency ownership.
    4. Pakistan now requires every shop to accept cryptocurrency payments.

    パキスタンの以前の制限と2026年の取り組みの主な違いは何ですか？

Discussion Questions

  1. El Salvador adopted the US dollar in 2001 and later introduced Bitcoin as legal tender. How might a country’s existing monetary system influence its willingness to accept new forms of money? What advantages and risks might arise when a country no longer controls its own currency?

    エルサルバドルは2001年に米ドルを採用し、のちにビットコインを法定通貨として導入しました。国の既存の通貨システムは、新しい形のお金を受け入れる意欲にどう影響しうるでしょうか。自国通貨をコントロールしなくなったとき、どのような利点とリスクが生じうるでしょうか？

  2. China restricts private cryptocurrency businesses while developing its own digital yuan. What advantages might a government see in maintaining control over digital money, and what opportunities could be lost by restricting privately developed alternatives?

    中国は民間の暗号資産ビジネスを制限しつつ、自国のデジタル人民元を開発しています。政府がデジタルマネーの管理を維持することにどのような利点を見いだしうるでしょうか。また、民間が開発した代替手段を制限することで、どのような機会が失われうるでしょうか？

  3. Japan allows cryptocurrency exchanges to operate under regulation but does not guarantee the value of the assets they trade. How should regulators communicate this distinction to consumers? What responsibilities should licensed exchanges have when customers suffer losses?

    日本は規制のもとで暗号資産取引所の運営を認めますが、取引される資産の価値は保証しません。規制当局はこの区別を消費者にどう伝えるべきでしょうか。顧客が損失を被ったとき、認可された取引所はどのような責任を負うべきでしょうか？

  4. Pakistan has moved toward regulating cryptocurrency businesses that previously operated with limited government supervision. What factors should a country consider when deciding whether to prohibit, regulate, or actively promote a new financial technology?

    パキスタンは、以前は政府の監督が限られたなかで動いていた暗号資産ビジネスを規制する方向へ進みました。新しい金融技術を禁止するか、規制するか、積極的に推進するかを決めるとき、国はどのような要因を考慮すべきでしょうか？

  5. El Salvador, China, Japan, and Pakistan have taken different approaches to cryptocurrency. In what areas would international cooperation be beneficial, and which decisions should remain under the control of individual governments?

    エルサルバドル、中国、日本、パキスタンは暗号資産に対して異なる取り組みをとってきました。どの分野で国際協力が有益で、どの決定は各国政府の管理のもとにとどめるべきでしょうか？

Speaking Practice

One-Minute News Briefing

Imagine you are explaining to a colleague why different countries have adopted different rules for cryptocurrency. Give a short explanation of approximately one minute, covering the following points: Why El Salvador’s monetary history made its Bitcoin policy different from those of Japan and China. How China’s digital yuan differs from privately operated cryptocurrencies. Why Japan allows cryptocurrency exchanges without guaranteeing cryptocurrency investments. What these examples suggest about the relationship between financial innovation and government regulation. Try to use at least three expressions from today’s Vocabulary.

1分ニュース・ブリーフィング。同僚に、なぜ国によって暗号資産のルールが異なるのかを説明しているつもりで話してください。およそ1分で、次の点をカバーしてください。エルサルバドルの通貨史が、日本や中国と違うビットコイン政策にしたのはなぜか。中国のデジタル人民元が民間運営の暗号資産とどう違うか。日本が暗号資産投資を保証せずに取引所を認めるのはなぜか。これらの例が、金融革新と政府規制の関係について何を示唆するか。今日のVocabularyから少なくとも三つの表現を使ってください。