If you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu; The state does not relinquish control, it observes, adapts, and eventually classifies.
Since the advent of bitcoin and other emerging peer-to-peer decentralized technologies, one question has often resonated: Are regulations necessary, and if so, to what extent?
These technologies are designed to grant freedom and autonomy to individual monetary rights, but is that even possible? Can any invention of such scale truly operate under the radar of regulatory authorities? 
This piece argues that while bitcoin and its underlying architecture promise radical financial sovereignty, the realities of governance and state oversight cannot be ignored.
By examining regulatory patterns in countries like Nigeria, Ethiopia, and Kenya, it illustrates how governments are struggling to grasp and respond to this decentralized revolution, often with contradictory or inadequate measures. The tension between freedom and oversight is playing out in real time.
Even where regulation cannot fully limit the use of bitcoin—such as in sending and receiving transactions—what about mining? Can it go unregulated?
Take China as a case study. It tried to ban itself entirely from the Bitcoin network. Since 2013, China has banned financial institutions from digital currencies. In 2017, ICOs and exchanges were outlawed, and by 2021, all digital currency-related activities, including mining, were declared illegal. Yet, it’s hard to argue no bitcoin activity occurs there today. Can regulations truly track decentralized exchange activity? Likely not.
As bitcoin adoption grows in Africa—including mining in Ethiopia, now contributing roughly 2.5% of global hashrate—a pattern appears. First, ban financial institutions from interacting with digital currencies. Then reverse it. Next, introduce tax-related bills. Finally, create frameworks or stretch existing laws to cover digital assets.
Is that enough? Bitcoin products are rising. Merchants are onboarding. Daily use is increasing. But regulations lag. Worse, a single misaligned statute could ruin progress.
In Nigeria, the SEC recently classified bitcoin as a security under the new Investment and Securities Act (ISA). This alarmed the community, as bitcoin fails the Howey Test and lacks a central issuer. Bitcoiners argue it should be seen as a monetary asset.
Yet no one is fixing this. The Nigerian Bitcoin community remains divided. They don’t identify as a union or community. But to define an industry, a united front is essential. That unity is missing—and that’s a problem.
A case titled Bitcoin v. Nigeria is now before the Federal High Court. A bitcoin political activist is suing the government over harassment from tax and police agencies, seeking legal protection for bitcoin users. It’s a landmark suit demanding a united front and strategic lobbying.
The activist has faced cyberattacks and repression. I support the effort. I authored the whitepaper and provided strategic counsel, advocating dialogue as the best path forward.
Last year, Nigeria banned P2P activities using USDT, blaming it for the naira’s depreciation—a scapegoat for poor monetary policy. Even today, “bitcoin” remains restricted on Nigeria’s CAC portal.
Businesses cannot register with “bitcoin” in their name. They operate under aliases. This is legal, but raises questions. Despite being a global P2P leader (per Chainalysis), Nigerian stakeholders operate in disguise.
At the Bitcoin Innovation Summit hosted by Bitcoin Dada, panelists from Btrust Builders, iPayBTC, Bitnob, and Mavapay discussed regulation. One spoke of moving as a herd. Another described regulators as flying arrows and advised setting up offshore. A third called regulators “big guns” hampering fluidity. One quoted his boss: “You keep building until regulation meets you.”
I found these views disturbing. They signal a half-in, half-out approach. No long-term conviction to stay in Nigeria. And again, no consensus on lobbying. Why? Because the so-called community won’t even recognize itself as one.
Another group, behind the Nigerian Bitcoin Conference, claimed the SEC chairman is bitcoin-friendly. I argued then, and maintain now that if friendliness exists and the community has lasted over five years, why is there no real progress?
Not much is happening in terms of regulation. Since Nigeria’s new supposedly ‘crypto-friendly’ administration took office, nearly all new bills reaching second reading have been tax-related. This is a pattern. You don’t wait for regulation to meet you. You take it to them. That is lobbying. That is how it’s done in developed jurisdictions. Waiting to be found is a mistake, because regulators will define the asset however they want.
Consider the U.S. bitcoin community. They invited Trump to speak at Bitcoin 2024 and lobbied for specific legislation. The result? Trump proposed a national Strategic Bitcoin reserve and executive policy action.
Section 1 of that order recognizes bitcoin uniquely, defining its strategic and monetary role. Bitcoin now holds a special status in U.S. regulation—an asset class distinct from the wider crypto category. That is how you scale.
Across Africa, nations are taking different regulatory paths;
Ethiopia: A Mining Powerhouse Amid Regulatory Ambiguity
Ethiopia is leveraging hydroelectric resources to become a major mining player. In 2024, Ethiopian Electric Power earned $55 million from bitcoin miners, projected to hit $123 million next year. Yet, the country lacks a legal framework for digital currencies. This disconnect hampers bitcoin-to-fiat channels and limits operational support.
Kenya: Progressing Toward Comprehensive Regulation
Kenya is drafting the Virtual Asset Service Providers (VASP) Bill 2025 to license and regulate digital currency providers with anti-money laundering provisions. The Capital Markets (Amendment) Bill 2023 would classify digital currencies as securities under the Capital Markets Authority. These actions show a serious push for innovation and oversight.
South Africa: Establishing a Regulated Ecosystem
South Africa has issued licenses to 59 digital currency businesses via the Financial Sector Conduct Authority (FSCA). The tax authority mandates that digital asset gains be declared as part of income. South Africa is leading in creating a secure, regulated market.
In summary, Ethiopia’s mining boom shows potential, but regulation is lacking. Kenya and South Africa are taking proactive steps to balance innovation and consumer protection.
Call to Action
Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.
This is the time to organize, not tomorrow, not when things fall apart, but now. In the absence of collective vision, one law could bring everything down like a house of cards.
We must demand clarity, protection, and a seat at the table. Lobbying must be as important as building. No matter how advanced our technology, it could all collapse with a single signature, one misworded clause, one rushed vote.
The future of bitcoin in Africa will not be written by accident. It will be written by those who show up together, informed, and relentless.
