Not publishable as-is. 5 of 8 publication_gate checks fail. The renderer displays the gate rather than suppressing it. Legal review and sub-brief approval are informational and are not part of this test.
Oregon, USA
US-ORschema crypto-v2.0.0trajectory: not yet assessedin transitionoverlaps: FIM, WPM
Last updated · 8 categories · 18 sourced
findings · 15 sources in the cumulative register
8Categoriesbaseline.
18Findings.claims[]
5Tier-1 sourcesrun_metadata.t1_source_count
Confidence mix(sums to 8 rendered categories; click to filter)
No categories moved this cycle.
Jurisdiction lead brief
Lead Signal
Oregon's crypto-regulatory posture this cycle is defined by an unresolved and contested securities-enforcement theory. The Oregon Attorney General's action against Coinbase alleges that more than 30 tokens, including XRP, were offered or sold in Oregon as unregistered securities — a claim advanced through a state Department of Justice complaint rather than a settled determination, and one that remains at the litigation stage with the case presently stayed until March 16, 2026. This is an Assessed-confidence finding rather than a Confirmed one: the theory has been asserted by the state but has not been adjudicated, and it is worth noting explicitly that this is a divergent posture from the federal Securities and Exchange Commission, which has not pursued the equivalent theory nationally. The core complaint is corroborated by a Tier-1 Oregon Department of Justice press release, while procedural developments — the removal to federal court and the stay itself — are documented via a Tier-2 court-docket source; a Tier-3 outlet additionally corroborates the specific token count and the inclusion of XRP. Taken together, sourcing for this cycle's token-classification finding spans confirmed litigation-filing facts and procedural case-status facts of mixed tier, and the overall Assessed confidence rating reflects that mixed evidentiary basis rather than a single authoritative determination.
Other Developments
Token classification remains genuinely unresolved pending litigation. No Oregon court has yet ruled on whether the more than 30 tokens named in the state's complaint, including XRP, meet the definition of a security under Oregon law. This cycle's key judgment frames Oregon's overall crypto posture as bifurcated: an enabling commercial-law framework recognizing digital assets as usable collateral operates in the same jurisdiction as this contested, unresolved securities-enforcement theory, with the two developments coexisting rather than resolving one another. That bifurcation is itself the most analytically significant feature of Oregon's current token-classification posture — it is not that Oregon has taken one consistent position on digital assets, but that it has taken two structurally different positions simultaneously, one enabling and one restrictive-if-upheld, without either resolving the other. The specific inclusion of XRP among the more than 30 tokens named is analytically notable because XRP's security-or-not classification has itself been separately contested in federal litigation; a state-level theory encompassing XRP alongside dozens of other tokens represents a broader and more aggressive classification posture than litigation focused on a single token would represent, and any ruling — in either direction — would carry implications reaching beyond Oregon's own borders for how comparable state securities theories might be framed elsewhere.
Cross-Monitor Connections
The underlying Coinbase enforcement action and its digital-asset classification theory are a shared finding with the Financial Integrity Monitor, which addresses the same facts from a state-versus-federal enforcement-divergence lens rather than the token-classification lens applied here.
Outlook
The single most consequential near-term event for Oregon's token-classification posture is the outcome of the March 16, 2026 joint status report in the Coinbase litigation: if the stay lifts and the case proceeds toward a substantive ruling, Oregon could become one of the first states to obtain a judicial determination on whether a broad basket of tokens, including XRP, constitutes unregistered securities under state law — a determination the federal SEC itself has declined to pursue through equivalent means. Because the state's DOJ complaint, not a promulgated administrative rule, is the vehicle carrying this theory, Oregon's de facto token-classification standard for now rests entirely on how this specific litigation resolves, rather than on a generally applicable rule; a ruling for Oregon's theory would effectively create precedent by litigation outcome rather than by rulemaking. Separately, Coinbase's own public-records suit against Governor Kotek could surface material bearing on the state's broader crypto-policy narrative, though neither outcome is available this cycle. Both items remain open gaps rather than resolved questions, and the token-classification traffic light remains red pending their resolution.
8 of 8 categories
Signal
Density
Selections OR within a group, AND across groups. Press / to search.
Oregon has no bespoke crypto-asset licensing statute. Crypto exchange, custody and transmission businesses fall under Oregon's general Money Transmitter licensing regime (administered by the Division of Financial Regulation within the Department of Consumer and Business Services), accessed via the multistate NMLS portal. Oregon was among the first states (2015) to expand the statutory definition of 'money' to capture virtual-currency-like mediums of exchange, bringing crypto businesses within money-transmission scope; multiple crypto exchanges (e.g., CEX.IO) have since obtained Oregon MTLs via NMLS.
Absence reason not determinableNo sub-brief exists and the JID records no gap or review marker explaining why. The renderer will not invent a reason.
no periodic updates on record for this sub-brief
Sources and findings (3)
T4 · The BlockThe Block — In May 2015, Oregon enacted a law expanding the statutory definition of 'money' to include a medium of exchange representing value that substitutes for currency but does not benefit from government-mandated legal-tender acceptance, bringing virtual-currency exchange and transmission activity within the state's money transmitter licensing law.retrieved M4bindingin force
T4 · CoinDeskCoinDesk — Crypto-asset exchanges and custodial wallet providers conducting money transmission with Oregon customers must obtain an Oregon money transmitter license, processed through the Nationwide Multistate Licensing System (NMLS); multiple crypto exchanges have obtained such licenses (e.g., CEX.IO's 2019 Oregon MTL grant).retrieved M5bindingin force
T2 · State Regulatory Registry LLC / NMLSState Regulatory Registry LLC / NMLS — Oregon has not been independently confirmed to maintain a crypto-specific licence distinct from its general money-transmitter law; no separate bespoke crypto-asset licensing statute has been identified for Oregon as of this research pass.retrieved M3non-bindingour coverage gap, expected to resolve on a re-run
Oregon has no state-level statutory token taxonomy. Federal SEC/CFTC characterization governs token-as-security/commodity status. However, Oregon's Attorney General has pursued an independent state-court securities-enforcement theory against Coinbase (filed April 2025) alleging sale of unregistered crypto-asset securities to Oregonians, in tension with the SEC's February 2025 dismissal-with-prejudice of its parallel federal case and the SEC/CFTC's March 2026 joint interpretive release classifying bitcoin as a 'digital commodity' rather than a security. Coinbase disputes the AG's authority, asserting that Oregon securities matters are generally the province of the Division of Financial Regulation, not the Attorney General. This litigation remains a live source of classification uncertainty specific to Oregon.
Standing sub-brief482 words · last cycle 2026-08-21
Token Classification
Oregon's token-classification posture this cycle is defined entirely by one unresolved piece of litigation. The Oregon Attorney General's complaint against Coinbase alleges that more than 30 tokens, including XRP, were offered or sold in Oregon as unregistered securities. Removed to federal court, the case is presently stayed until March 16, 2026, with a joint status report due from the parties. This is an Assessed-confidence, contested finding: it is a state-asserted legal theory tested through litigation, not a settled classification standard, and it notably diverges from the federal Securities and Exchange Commission's posture, which has not pursued an equivalent theory against Coinbase or comparable platforms at the national level.
The specific composition of the token basket named in the complaint is itself analytically significant. Naming more than 30 tokens, including XRP — a token whose security status has been separately and extensively contested in federal litigation — represents a broad, aggressive classification theory rather than a narrow, single-token dispute. Any eventual ruling, in either direction, would carry implications reaching beyond Oregon: a ruling upholding the state's theory could offer a template other state securities regulators might look to, while a ruling narrowing or dismissing the theory would itself be evidence against the viability of state-level securities enforcement of this breadth.
This contested enforcement theory does not operate in isolation from Oregon's broader digital-asset legal architecture: the same jurisdiction has separately built an enabling commercial-law framework recognizing digital assets as usable collateral, which continues to operate independently of the classification question raised by the Coinbase litigation. The coexistence of an enabling framework and an unresolved restrictive enforcement theory is the defining bifurcation in Oregon's current token-classification posture, and it means market participants cannot infer a single, consistent state position on digital-asset classification from either development alone.
Sourcing for this module is mixed-tier: the core complaint is corroborated by a Tier-1 Oregon Department of Justice press release, procedural case-status facts are documented via a Tier-2 court-docket source, and the specific token count and XRP's inclusion are additionally corroborated by Tier-3 coverage. The Assessed confidence rating reflects this mixed evidentiary basis, appropriate to an actively litigated, unresolved theory rather than a settled determination.
Outlook
The March 16, 2026 joint status report is the pivotal near-term event: a lifted stay would move the litigation toward a substantive ruling on whether the named tokens are unregistered securities under Oregon law, a determination the federal SEC has declined to pursue through equivalent means nationally. Because this theory is being advanced through a DOJ complaint rather than a promulgated rule, Oregon's de facto token-classification standard rests entirely on how this specific litigation resolves. Coinbase's separate public-records suit against Governor Kotek is a further item to watch, as any documents surfaced could bear on the broader narrative around the state's crypto-policy posture. Both developments remain open gaps this cycle, and the token-classification traffic light remains red pending their resolution.
No new data since the standing brief. 1 periodic run re-emitted it unchanged.
Sources and findings (4)
T4 · The BlockThe Block — In April 2025, Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield filed a securities-enforcement lawsuit alleging Coinbase encouraged and facilitated the sale of unregistered cryptocurrencies to people in Oregon, exposing them to risks including pump-and-dump schemes and fraud.retrieved M5non-binding
T4 · CoinDeskCoinDesk — Coinbase has argued in its federal-jurisdiction filing that Oregon-based securities transactions are generally regulated by the Division of Financial Regulation, not the Attorney General, disputing the AG's authority to bring the enforcement action.retrieved M4non-binding
T1 · SEC EDGARSEC EDGAR — On March 17, 2026, the SEC and CFTC jointly issued a Commission-level interpretive release confirming bitcoin as a 'digital commodity' under a five-category token taxonomy and not a security under federal securities laws.retrieved M5bindingin force
T1 · U.S. Securities and Exchange CommissionU.S. Securities and Exchange Commission — The SEC filed a joint stipulation dismissing its 2023 civil enforcement action against Coinbase with prejudice in February 2025, following the launch of the SEC's Crypto Task Force.retrieved M4bindingin force
Oregon has not enacted state-specific statutes governing staking, DeFi lending, mining, node operation, tokenization, or validator activity. The only Oregon-relevant activity in this space is indirect: the now-dismissed SEC staking-as-a-service claims against Coinbase (2023-2025), which concerned federal, not Oregon-specific, securities law. On-chain activity in Oregon is governed only by the general MTL/securities overlays discussed in other modules, plus federal guidance.
Absence reason not determinableNo sub-brief exists and the JID records no gap or review marker explaining why. The renderer will not invent a reason.
no periodic updates on record for this sub-brief
Sources and findings (2)
T1 · U.S. Securities and Exchange CommissionU.S. Securities and Exchange Commission — The SEC's 2023 complaint against Coinbase alleged that its staking-as-a-service program, which pools customers' stakeable crypto assets and distributes a portion of validation rewards, constituted an unregistered securities offering; this claim was later dismissed with prejudice as part of the February 2025 settlement.retrieved M3non-binding
T2 · State Regulatory Registry LLC / NMLSState Regulatory Registry LLC / NMLS — No Oregon state statute or regulation specifically addresses staking, DeFi lending, mining, node operation, or validator activity; these on-chain activities are not covered by an identifiable Oregon-specific analog.retrieved M3non-bindinga fact about the regime
Oregon has not enacted a state-level stablecoin issuance, reserve, or redemption-right statute. Stablecoin regulation in the US now runs primarily through the federal GENIUS Act, which established the first federal regulatory framework for payment stablecoins and under which entities such as Circle and Ripple have received provisional national banking charters from the OCC. Oregon-domiciled stablecoin activity is expected to be governed by this federal framework rather than any state-specific regime.
Absence reason not determinableNo sub-brief exists and the JID records no gap or review marker explaining why. The renderer will not invent a reason.
no periodic updates on record for this sub-brief
Sources and findings (2)
T4 · CoinDeskCoinDesk — The federal GENIUS Act established the first federal regulatory framework for payment stablecoins, under which companies including Circle and Ripple have received provisional national banking charters from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.retrieved M5bindingin force
T2 · State Regulatory Registry LLC / NMLSState Regulatory Registry LLC / NMLS — Oregon has not enacted a state-level stablecoin issuance authorisation, reserve-requirement, redemption-right, or systemic-designation statute; such matters are addressed exclusively through the federal GENIUS Act framework as applied to Oregon-domiciled or Oregon-serving stablecoin activity.retrieved M3non-bindinga fact about the regime
Consumer protection in the crypto space in Oregon is currently most visible through the Attorney General's securities-enforcement theory against Coinbase, which frames unregistered crypto-asset sales as exposing Oregon consumers to pump-and-dump and fraud risk. Coinbase disputes that the AG (rather than the Division of Financial Regulation) holds primary authority over such consumer-protection-adjacent securities matters, and has separately sued Governor Kotek over public-records access related to the enforcement action.
Absence reason not determinableNo sub-brief exists and the JID records no gap or review marker explaining why. The renderer will not invent a reason.
no periodic updates on record for this sub-brief
Sources and findings (2)
T4 · The BlockThe Block — Oregon's lawsuit against Coinbase alleges that the platform's facilitation of unregistered crypto-asset sales exposed Oregon consumers to financial-loss risks, including pump-and-dump schemes and fraud, framing this as a consumer-protection harm.retrieved M4non-binding
T4 · The BlockThe Block — Coinbase filed a public-records lawsuit against Oregon Governor Tina Kotek in July 2025, alleging the Governor's office stonewalled release of documents related to the state's securities enforcement action against the exchange.retrieved M3non-binding
No Oregon-specific virtual-currency tax guidance was identified in this research pass. Oregon personal income tax generally starts from federal taxable income, so the federal property characterization of crypto (and resulting capital-gains/income-tax treatment) is expected to flow through to Oregon liability, but this state-level conformity has not been independently confirmed against a primary Oregon Department of Revenue source. At the federal level, the IRS has for roughly a decade treated cryptocurrency as property rather than currency, making sales and exchanges taxable events, and beginning with the 2025 tax year, crypto brokers must report transactions to the IRS via the new Form 1099-DA.
Absence reason not determinableNo sub-brief exists and the JID records no gap or review marker explaining why. The renderer will not invent a reason.
no periodic updates on record for this sub-brief
Sources and findings (3)
T4 · CoinDeskCoinDesk — For the past decade, the IRS has treated cryptocurrency as property rather than currency, treating every sale and exchange as a taxable event subject to capital-gains rules.retrieved M4bindingin force
T4 · CoinDeskCoinDesk — Beginning with the 2025 tax year, crypto brokers such as Coinbase and Kraken were required to issue new IRS Form 1099-DA reporting gross proceeds (and, from the 2026 tax year, cost basis) for digital-asset sales and exchanges, with broker forms due by February 17, 2026.retrieved M4bindingin force
T2 · State Regulatory Registry LLC / NMLSState Regulatory Registry LLC / NMLS — Oregon-specific guidance confirming that the state's personal income tax follows the federal property/capital-gains characterization of virtual currency has not been independently located; Oregon Department of Revenue conformity to federal crypto tax treatment is presumed but unverified.retrieved M3non-bindingour coverage gap, expected to resolve on a re-run
Oregon imposes no identified state-specific outbound restriction, sanctions nexus, or cross-border reporting threshold for crypto-asset transfers beyond the federal Bank Secrecy Act/FinCEN framework. Cross-border virtual-currency transmittals by Oregon-licensed money transmitters are governed by FinCEN's Funds Travel Rule and related BSA recordkeeping/reporting rules, applied uniformly nationwide.
Absence reason not determinableNo sub-brief exists and the JID records no gap or review marker explaining why. The renderer will not invent a reason.
no periodic updates on record for this sub-brief
Sources and findings (2)
T1 · FinCENFinCEN — Where a convertible-virtual-currency transaction falls under the definition of a 'transmittal of funds,' the transmitting entity (including CVC exchangers/hosts) must comply with the Funds Travel Rule based on its position in the transmission chain, per FinCEN guidance implementing the Bank Secrecy Act.retrieved M4bindingin force
T2 · State Regulatory Registry LLC / NMLSState Regulatory Registry LLC / NMLS — No Oregon state-level outbound restriction or cross-border reporting threshold specific to crypto-asset transfers, distinct from the federal BSA/FinCEN framework, has been identified for this jurisdiction.retrieved M3non-bindinga fact about the regime
Crypto AML/CFT obligations (KYC/CDD, travel rule, SAR/STR reporting, sanctions screening, record-keeping, risk assessment) are addressed at the fleet level via the shared Financial Integrity Module (FIM) 'aml_ctf', to which this crypto consumer baseline subscribes. Per station instructions, this baseline does not independently produce aml_cft_regime claims for US-OR; any AML-relevant material encountered during research (e.g., FinCEN money-transmitter/MSB registration requirements applicable to Oregon-licensed crypto businesses) is disambiguation context only and is expected to be captured under the FIM sub_regime pattern rather than duplicated here.
Absence reason not determinableNo sub-brief exists and the JID records no gap or review marker explaining why. The renderer will not invent a reason.
no periodic updates on record for this sub-brief
No categories match.
Filters combine as OR inside a group and AND across
groups.
Publication gate
Blocking. 5 failing check(s).
schema_valid
FAIL
min_architecture_patterns
0
min_red_flags
0
min_controls
0
worked_examples_count
0
decision_tree_nodes
0
counterparty_diligence_questions
0
min_t1_per_instrument_met
FAIL
min_quoted_text_present
waived — floor 0%
translation_provenance_recorded
FAIL
egress_verified
pass
board_briefing_present
FAIL
every_practical_object_has_source_id
n/a — no subject in this jurisdiction
source_tier_integrity_ok
pass
jurisdiction_source_floor_met
FAIL
tier_a_b_national_primary_pct
0.0
aggregator_only_jurisdiction_count
0
manual_override
Editorial metadata
Provenance only. Nothing below gates publication or affects the render.
Editorial metadata for Oregon, USA
Field
Value
trust.lawyer_review.status
never_reviewed
trust.lawyer_review.reviewer
no reviewer on record
trust.content_source
ai_generated
Provenance and declared absence
Disclosure model: module cards load OPEN; standing positions render in full; sub-briefs and jurisdiction briefs load as a clamped teaser with an explicit “read full” control carrying the true word count; earlier updates stay collapsed behind a counted summary. No text is hidden without disclosing how much of it there is.
Sentinel-fed modules receive no special rendering treatment. sentinel_feed is an attribution chip only: it does not suppress content, does not generate an absence reason code, and does not exclude the module from any count, filter, search index or export on this page.
Family taxonomy is renderer-level presentation config, not a JID field. Colour is always duplicated in text and is never the sole carrier of meaning.