France has abandoned its mandatory reporting requirements for self-custody wallets, marking a clear victory for Bitcoin supporters. On April 28, 2026, the Joint Parliamentary Committee did not retain the fourth clause of a bill aimed at combating social and tax fraud. This clause originally planned to require users to report annually on digital asset wallets directly controlled by them.
This policy retreat changes the political signal.
The targeted clause did not involve accounts opened on traditional platforms but focused on wallets held directly on the blockchain without intermediary service providers. In other words, it pertains to wallets where users manage their own keys.
The threshold set in the proposal was low. The text passed by the National Assembly mentioned that once the total value of assets exceeds €5,000, users would need to provide annual notifications. This reporting would require users to inform tax authorities of the market value of their wallets.
Therefore, the issue is not merely a tax matter; it touches on the fundamental principle of self-custody. For Bitcoin, owning one's keys means truly owning one's funds. Transforming this autonomy into a specific reporting obligation would place self-custody under continuous scrutiny.
Concerns about databases outweigh tax issues.
However, the ecosystem is primarily focused on another risk. A database listing cryptocurrency asset holders could become a target. Not only hackers but also criminal networks would seek out traceable and vulnerable individuals with sound financial standings.
This point held significant weight in the debate. France has already seen multiple incidents targeting individuals associated with cryptocurrencies or their relatives. Le Monde reported arrests in kidnapping cases related to the industry, with targets connected to cryptocurrency entrepreneurs.
What Bitcoin defends is far more than just a tool.
This event highlights a frequently misunderstood fact. Self-custody wallets are not merely toys for tech enthusiasts; they are a logical extension of Bitcoin. The network is designed to reduce reliance on trusted third parties.
Requiring specific reporting for this practice would create a strange asymmetry. Holding one's keys would become more suspicious than entrusting funds to a platform. This is the opposite of Bitcoin's philosophy, which emphasizes personal responsibility.
Thus, the mobilization of Adan and the National Bitcoin Institute focused on a core point: while combating fraud, one cannot draw a map of crypto wealth. Tax laws may require reporting of gains, but an annual private wallet inventory opens another door.
The withdrawal of the fourth clause does not end the matter but shifts it to other aspects. The European framework has evolved with the advancement of MiCA, establishing common rules for cryptocurrency assets, service providers, issuers, and transaction supervision.