Cato urges US to scrap crypto capital gains tax to boost competition

The Cato Institute, a prominent US think tank, is urging policymakers to rethink capital gains taxation on Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. In a new policy note, researcher Nicholas Anthony argues that removing or reshaping capital gains taxes could unlock cheaper, more competitive money by reducing the tax distortions that currently incentivize long-term holding and heavy reporting requirements.

Anthony suggests the simplest option might be to eliminate capital gains taxes on crypto entirely. As an alternative, he outlines measures that would exempt crypto and foreign currency transactions when used to purchase goods or services, aiming to “take the government’s thumb off the scale and let competition be the true decider of the best money.” He emphasizes that a tax regime that treats everyday crypto spending like ordinary taxable events can undermine the practical use of digital assets as a means of exchange.

Key takeaways

• Policy proposal: The Cato Institute recommends either scrapping capital gains taxes on crypto entirely or exempting crypto transactions used for everyday purchases from CGT to foster competition among money-like assets.
• Tax burden for users: The note highlights how even simple, routine crypto spending can trigger complex tax filings, deterring everyday usage and broader adoption.
• Alternative approaches: A de minimis tax threshold is proposed as another option to limit CGT triggers unless gains exceed a defined amount.
• Adoption signals: Recent data show growing real-world use of crypto for goods and services, underscoring the potential market impact of tax policy reforms.

Rethinking the tax kernel of crypto spending

The policy paper frames capital gains taxes as a friction point for crypto’s evolution from speculative asset to currency. Anthony notes that when individuals buy daily items, such as coffee, with crypto, the IRS-like framework can convert a routine transaction into a complex tax event. He stresses that while Bitcoin and other digital assets have gained practical use, the tax code has not kept pace, creating unnecessary reporting burdens for compliant users.

Anthony’s reasoning aligns with a broader critique circulating among crypto researchers: tax policy should reflect the functional realities of digital currencies as both stores of value and mediums of exchange. By removing or narrowing CGT exposure, proponents argue, the United States could reduce compliance costs for ordinary users, drive greater merchant adoption, and enhance global competitiveness in a landscape where several jurisdictions are actively adjusting crypto tax rules to attract activity and investment.

“Bitcoiners know the frustration of tax season all too well. It’s never been easier to use Bitcoin as money. Yet, at the same time, the tax code puts an incredible burden on law-abiding citizens. Something as simple as buying a cup of coffee every day with Bitcoin can result in more than 100 pages of tax filings.”

The note adds that eliminating CGT entirely would be the most straightforward route, but it also acknowledges practical concerns, such as how to structure exemptions without creating loopholes or excessive compliance challenges. An interim path—removing CGT on crypto purchases of goods and services—could be more politically feasible but would still require robust systems to verify eligible transactions and prevent abuse. A de minimis threshold, where gains are ignored unless they surpass a specific limit, is presented as another approach that could balance simplicity with tax integrity.

Context, costs, and what could change next

The Cato Institute’s position sits within a long-running debate about how best to classify and tax digital assets. The policy note stresses that many Americans already use crypto in everyday life, and the current tax framework often complicates routine spending more than it incentivizes long-term investment. This tension matters not just for individual taxpayers, but for merchants, exchanges, and developers seeking to build crypto-aware ecosystems that function like mainstream payment rails.

Anthony has a track record of engaging lawmakers on crypto policy. The institute has historically argued for policies aimed at reducing unnecessary regulatory frictions, and this latest report continues that stance by centering tax design as a lever for broader crypto adoption. While the note does not propose immediate legislative milestones, it invites policymakers to consider how tax rules could better align with the practical realities of digital money, potentially spurring more competition among payment methods and currencies.

From a market perspective, the implications could be meaningful if tax changes reduce perceived friction around crypto usage. Investors and builders may watch how lawmakers respond to these arguments, particularly in an environment where tax policy remains a primary channel through which government policy shapes crypto activity. The balance to strike is clear: preserve tax integrity while removing unnecessary barriers to use and innovation.

Early signals about real-world crypto usage reinforce the conversation. A 2025 survey from the National Cryptocurrency Association found that 39% of US crypto holders reported using crypto to purchase goods and services. Meanwhile, academic data compiled by Springer Nature indicate roughly 11,000 merchants worldwide accept Bitcoin as payment, illustrating that the flow of crypto into everyday commerce is not merely theoretical. These numbers suggest that any policy shift could have a tangible impact on consumer behavior and merchant acceptance, potentially widening the circle of everyday crypto users.

Beyond the United States, the debate on crypto taxation is part of a broader international trend. Some policymakers argue that tax rules should be simpler and more predictable to reduce compliance costs and uncertainty, while others warn against eroding fiscal bases or creating gaps that could invite abuse. The Cato paper contributes to this ongoing conversation by centering the tax treatment of crypto as a practical driver of adoption and a determinant of how competitive a country’s money system can be.

What to watch as the debate evolves

Readers should monitor potential legislative developments or regulatory proposals that reflect this shift in thinking. If a framework that lightly taxes or exempts crypto transactions gains traction, it could influence not only consumer behavior but also the operating models of wallets, exchanges, and merchants seeking to optimize payment flows. On the flip side, any move to preserve or tighten CGT could sustain the existing friction that incentives buy-and-hold strategies over active use.

As the policy discussion unfolds, market participants and observers will be watching for concrete proposals, transitional rules, and how enforcement and reporting would be handled under new regimes. The central question remains: can tax policy reshape crypto usage in a way that strengthens competition and broadens access without eroding fiscal safeguards?

What remains uncertain is the precise design of any reform and how it would interact with state taxes, international tax agreements, and evolving regulatory views on digital assets. Still, the debate underscores a growing consensus that the tax treatment of crypto is not just about revenues—it’s a lever that could influence the pace of crypto adoption, the behavior of users, and the strategic choices of builders in the ecosystem.

Investors and practitioners should keep a close eye on policymaker statements, study updates from organizations advocating for tax reform, and assess how changes to CGT could affect demand, merchant acceptance, and the broader competitive landscape of money in the digital era.