The Illinois General Assembly recently passed a $56 billion state budget for fiscal year 2027 (via Senate Bill 3019), which includes a first-in-the-nation targeted tax on cryptocurrency. Officially named the Digital Asset Privilege Tax, it is designed to capture revenue directly from the day-to-day operations of the crypto industry. The proposal imposes a 0.2% tax on the overall value of the digital assets involved in a transaction. The tax is triggered whenever a business exchanges, transfers, stores, or provides custodial services for a digital asset on behalf of a customer. The bill broadly defines it as a digital representation of value used as a medium of exchange, unit of account, or store of value, explicitly excluding traditional fiat currency. The tax is levied on the "digital asset broker" rather than directly on the individual consumer (though the cost will likely be passed down to users through higher platform fees). This encompasses major crypto exchanges, wallet and custody providers, and firms transmitting digital assets. A broker is subject to this tax if they meet either of the following criteria: -They have a physical place of business in Illinois. -They lack a physical presence but generate at least $100,000 in annual digital asset business receipts from customers based in Illinois. A transaction is legally considered to have occurred in Illinois if the customer is physically located there, or if their account data (such as an IP address or mailing address) indicates Illinois is their primary place of use. Currently awaiting the expected signature of Governor J.B. Pritzker, the tax is scheduled to go into effect on January 1, 2027. State lawmakers project it will generate roughly $60 million in new revenue. The measure includes strict registration requirements for brokers. Entities that fail to follow the guidelines starting in 2027 could be found guilty of a Class 3 felony, subjecting them to fines of up to $25,000 and potential prison sentences of two to five years. The proposal has drawn massive pushback from industry advocates, including the Digital Chamber, who argue the provision was buried in a massive budget package without stakeholder engagement and will be economically destructive to the state's digital asset ecosystem.