Ukraine’s draft law No. 10225-d on virtual assets was reportedly not considered during the November 9 plenary week because further proofreading was required, according to the supplied current report citing lawmaker Yaroslav Zheleznyak. The bill therefore remains pending a second reading despite earlier committee support, while the National Bank of Ukraine continues to object to the current version on financial-stability, competition and market-access grounds.

Why Bill 10225-d Was Not Considered This Week

The latest reported development is limited but significant. According to the supplied report, Yaroslav Zheleznyak said on November 9 that bill No. 10225-d would not be reviewed during the current plenary week because detailed proofreading was still needed.

This means the bill remained pending a second reading rather than advancing to a final parliamentary vote this week. Based on the available reporting, this does not amount to a formal withdrawal or an officially documented postponement of the bill as a whole. Earlier in November, the same report said a parliamentary committee had supported the document, suggesting that the process has been delayed at the floor stage rather than abandoned.

Incrypted separately reported that the finance, tax and customs committee recommended the bill for second reading and adoption as a whole, with 20 members supporting it. Taken together, the reports indicate that the bill remains alive in parliament but has not yet cleared the final hurdle.

What the NBU Objects to in the Current Version

The National Bank of Ukraine’s reported objections extend beyond a broad warning about crypto risks. The supplied report describes the NBU as opposing the current version over financial-stability and competition concerns, while calling for stricter controls on foreign tokens and clearer authorization rules for trading-platform operators.

Media accounts of the bank’s position provide more detail. Mezha reported that the NBU is concerned about how foreign-issued tokens could enter the market and the degree of discretion built into the authorization process for platform operators. The dispute is therefore not simply over whether Ukraine should regulate virtual assets, but over how market access would be controlled and whether the safeguards would be sufficiently robust.

Yahoo Finance also reported that the committee version would assign the National Securities and Stock Market Commission the leading role in regulating the crypto market, while the NBU would oversee electronic-money tokens. If that reported structure is retained, it helps explain the central bank’s focus on standards for admitting foreign tokens and on the design of operator authorization rules: these provisions would determine who can enter the market and under what supervision.

How to Interpret the November Vote Window and July 2027 Start Date

The November timeframe should be viewed as a reported voting window, rather than a confirmed session date. The supplied report said second-reading consideration was expected in November, but the latest update says the bill would not be reviewed during the current plenary week. That makes it less likely that any specific November slot had been firmly set.

The same caution applies to July 1, 2027. Reporting has presented that date as the point at which the new rules could take effect if the bill is adopted, rather than as a legally fixed deadline. Incrypted described it as the planned entry-into-force date, while the supplied report characterized it as a possible implementation date.

The practical takeaway is straightforward: the bill is still awaiting a second reading, the NBU’s objections remain unresolved in public reporting, and both the voting timetable and the 2027 start date remain conditional on the final text eventually adopted by parliament.