Marcin Bogdan: The cryptocurrency Act an chance to cryptothievery

Let's start with a reminder of the meaning of the word crypt. Crypto (from Greek Cryptos) means hidden, invisible. So what are cryptocurrency? The cryptovaluts are “digital currencies, decentralised, based on cryptography or encryption, which operate without intermediation of central banks and are stored in a distributed database called blockchain (block chain)’. It's a small complicated so it's worth explaining in more item the main features of these currencies:

• Digital – this means that they be only in electronic form, do not have the physical form of banknotes or coins
• Decentralised – this means that they are not controlled by any government or central bank
  • Cryptographic – due to the fact that their creation and securing of transactions is based on advanced encryption techniques

And most importantly, all transactions made are recorded in a public distributed book, which is simply a blockchain chain, which ensure transparency and safety of transactions.

The cryptolutes thus match any conventional currencies, especially abroad currencies, frequently treated as an investment alternatively than a means of payment. They besides match shares, or transferable securities, which are the chief investment instrument on the stock market. In cryptocurrency, as in shares and conventional currencies, you can gain or lose, depending on the hard frequently to foretell a change in their value. so cryptocurrency serves not only for payment, but besides for investment and even speculation, but only in digital space.

Although cryptocurrency is not controlled by governments and central banks, it is apparent that there should be any rules governing the cryptocurrency market. The European Union has so developed general guidelines indicating the desired regulation (the alleged MiCA Regulation) and has obliged associate States to draw up and implement laws applicable for each country in their own legal systems. Countries specified as the Czech Republic, Romania, Austria and Ireland have developed applicable laws on several, up to a twelve pages. The Polish Sejm prepared the Act, whose task itself has 117 pages, together with regulations are 334 pages, and with the justifications of the task it is 1228 pages. Yes, a 1000 2 100 and twenty-eight pages, your sight is correct.

A real thicket of paragraphs and articles. Or to defend investors? Or is it to blur the rules that have been implemented and to wash the image of the law that has been passed? Especially due to the fact that the laws in the Polish parliament are passed by the voices of specified intellects as Claudia Jachira or Izabel Lestin. Since cryptocurrency exists only in digital form to buy and sale them to rotate, it requires web pages, domains. Domains are so the only way to access our cryptocurrency account. Transactions cannot be ordered in a bank window, as for conventional currencies. Therefore, it is expected that the proposed Act will specifically safe the domains so that the cryptocurrency holder has safe access to its capital. Was this in the bill passed by the Sejm and vetoed by the President?

The Act introduces a mechanics for blocking domains by the Financial Supervision Commission (KNF). Both automatic and discretional. Blocking would affect entering a domain into the so-called. Infringement domain register:

Article 67. The registry shall include:

1. the net domain utilized to conduct crypto-activism activities without the required legal approval or another powers under Regulation 2023/1114;

2. the net domain utilized to conduct activities in breach of Regulation 2023/1114 in a way another than those referred to in point 1, if essential to prevent risks serious harm to customers or crypto-activators — in the absence of another effective measures to halt infringements of Regulation 2023/1114.

The discretion mechanics is that an entry in the registry may take place before the criminal proceedings are concluded — on the basis of suspicion and notification of a criminal offence.

The effects of KNF entering a domain into the registry were to be immediate, as recorded in the Act:

Article 70. 1. Telecommunications entrepreneur providing net access services is obliged to:

1) free of charge preventing access to domain names websites the net entered in the registry by its removal from telecommunications business information systems to convert the net domain name to IP address, no later than 48 hours after entry into the Register;

The question so arises whether the Act provides for any appeal procedure? Here's the record:

Article 71. 1. In the case referred to in Article 67(2), opposition to an alert in the registry may be raised within 2 months of the date of that alert:

...................................................................................

2. The objection shall include:

................................................................

3. Commission, within 14 days of the date of the opposition, issue a decision to leave the net domain name in the registry or to delete it From the Register.

The Office decides to enter the domain in the registry (the KNF is simply a state office, it is simply a public administration body alternatively than a court) and the same office shall consider the appeal. Depending on the official's subjective decision, we would lose access to our capital accumulated in cryptocurrency. It's public, though hidden in the confusion of legal records, theft. Real crypto theft.

President Karol Nawrocki, vetoing the Act of 7 November 2025 on the cryptoacts market, prevented Poles from crypto-thievery. He prevented Poles from attempting to illegally deny their access to their own capital invested in cryptocurrency. So will the issue of this Act be a climax, a turning point in the political dispute in Poland? She could be, and she should be. But I suppose, and I'm sure, that half my countrymen will think it's better to be robbed by Tusk than to make money with Kaczyński.

Mr Bogdan

P.S.

The consequences of this Act were not to be known by Poles, which is why Tusk secreted the parliamentary debate on the President's veto. At the same time, he assumed that no of the citizens themselves would break through 1228 pages of the draft Act