Ask five people what a digital asset is and you will get a different answer from each. A crypto investor says bitcoin and tokens. A tax preparer says anything the IRS wants reported on Form 1099-DA. An estate lawyer says the email account, the photos and the game characters a person leaves behind. A marketing team says its logo files and videos. State governments are now forming digital assets task forces, and none of the founding documents we could read says which of these meanings it intends.
This explainer sorts the competing definitions into three layers, shows where the law actually draws lines, lists the non-crypto examples and how courts and statutes treat them, and checks whether state task forces define the term. It is a companion to our 50-state crypto legislation and task force tracker.
The short answer
There is no single, commonly accepted legal definition of “digital asset.” In practice the term has three layers. The narrow layer means crypto: cryptocurrencies and tokens on blockchains. The middle layer adds stablecoins, NFTs and tokenized assets, and it is where federal and tax rules mostly sit. The broad layer means any electronic record in which someone has a right or interest, which can include email, photos, websites and accounts. Which layer applies depends on the law, the agency or the person using the phrase.
On the question many readers ask, the answer from the texts we read is no: state task force founding instruments do not define “digital asset.” A handful of state statutes do, and they disagree with each other. Both points are covered below.
Layer one: crypto
When a state creates a “digital asset and blockchain technology task force,” the working meaning is nearly always crypto and the technology behind it. Maryland’s 2026 law (Chapter 548) creates a Digital Asset and Blockchain Technology Task Force and tells it to study blockchain and cryptocurrency, including their risks, benefits and effects on state revenue and energy use. The act uses both terms without defining either. Utah’s 2022 law (HB 335) and Montana’s task force, which follows the same model, refer to blockchain, cryptocurrency and financial technology without defining them, and Hawaii’s 2022 act is also crypto-focused.
State reserve laws are where the meaning becomes concrete. New Hampshire’s HB 302 (RSA 6:8-d) leaves “digital asset” undefined and lets the treasurer invest only in a digital asset whose market capitalization averaged more than $500 billion over the prior year, with a cap of 5 percent of public funds in any one authorized investment. Texas’s SB 21 uses a similar market capitalization screen, according to secondary summaries. In practice the screen means bitcoin. Arizona’s HB 2749 created a reserve fund for unclaimed digital assets, staking rewards and airdrops, and it does not authorize buying crypto with public money. In all three, “digital asset” effectively means crypto, though Arizona’s wording is broader than that, as the table below shows.
Layer two: crypto plus stablecoins, NFTs and tokenized assets
Federal usage sits mostly here, and it is tied to ledger technology. Executive Order 14067 (March 2022) uses “digital assets” for central bank digital currencies and other digital representations of value, financial assets or claims that are issued or represented through distributed ledger technology, and it says cryptocurrencies and stablecoins are included. The IRS describes a digital asset as a digital representation of value recorded on a cryptographically secured distributed ledger or similar technology, with convertible virtual currency, stablecoins and NFTs as examples, and it treats digital assets as property for tax purposes.
The final Form 1099-DA broker rules follow that definition. According to law-firm and accounting-firm summaries, they reach stablecoins and NFTs, but they carve out closed-loop assets such as loyalty rewards and game tokens that cannot leave the program or the game. That matters for anyone who thinks of points or game items as digital assets: for tax reporting they are expressly outside the line. See our coverage of the 1099-DA cost-basis gap.
Market-structure legislation uses the same approach. As described in a July 2025 law-firm alert, the House bill (H.R. 3633) defines a digital asset as a digital record of value kept on a cryptographically secured ledger or similar technology, and a “digital commodity” as a digital asset tied to a blockchain system, excluding securities, payment stablecoins, bank deposits and derivatives. The GENIUS Act, in turn, regulates a narrower slice, the payment stablecoin. A few state bodies lean toward this layer. New Hampshire’s commission to study stable tokens, tokenized real-world assets and blockchain-based trusts is the clearest example, and Delaware’s 2026 task force charge reaches stablecoins and federal law. See our explainer on the tokenization market.
Layer three: any electronic record with value
The broadest model definition comes from the Uniform Law Commission’s Revised Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (RUFADAA, 2015). It defines a digital asset as an electronic record in which an individual has a right or interest, and it excludes the underlying asset or liability unless that asset or liability is itself an electronic record. The money in an online bank account is not the digital asset, but the electronic record of the account may be. The act’s official comments give examples that are not crypto at all: an email account, a social media account, photos in a cloud account, and a game character with its in-game property. We searched the official text and comments for domain names, blogs and e-book or music libraries and found none of them named.
RUFADAA is built for fiduciaries, such as an executor or agent, who need access to a person’s online property after death or incapacity. It is an access law, not an ownership, tax or securities law, and it gives a fiduciary no more rights than the user had. Most states have adopted it: reports put the count at about 46 states plus the District of Columbia as of 2024, so check the Uniform Law Commission’s enactment map for the current figure. Ohio’s version (R.C. 2137.01) carries the uniform wording, and Texas’s (Estates Code 2001.002), as shown on a mirror site, does too.
Commercial law has a related concept. UCC Article 12, added in 2022, uses the term “controllable electronic record” for digital information that a person can control, meaning the person can get substantially all of its benefit, exclude others from it and transfer that control. It does not use the label “digital asset,” and it is broader than crypto but narrower than any electronic record. One law-firm summary counted 34 states plus the District of Columbia as having enacted it, but we could not find a dated count, so treat that as approximate.
Outside the law, the corporate meaning is also broad. Gartner’s glossary, for example, describes digital assets as any digitally held item an organization can use for benefit, such as reports, recordings, video, brand emblems and websites. That is the sense used in digital asset management software, and it has nothing to do with blockchains.
Do state task forces define “digital asset”?
No, in every founding instrument we could read. We checked about twenty task force, commission and study committee laws and resolutions, and none defines the term. Delaware’s 2026 resolution (SCR 143) defines only the label “Task Force,” and uses “digital asset,” “stablecoin” and “distributed ledger” throughout without defining them. Louisiana’s SCR 68 (2026) is the same in its original, engrossed and enrolled versions; the enrolled text is final, and its recitals describe blockchain in plain words instead of defining it. New Hampshire’s HB 310 stable token commission statute (RSA 383:26) defines none of its key terms, including “stable token” and “tokenized real-world asset.” Connecticut, Illinois, Washington, Florida, New Jersey, New York, Arizona, Virginia and Rhode Island are in the same position, and so are Maryland, Utah, Montana, Hawaii and Texas from the earlier pass.
The few definitions that do appear inside these instruments are narrow and technical. Texas’s 2021 law (HB 1576) defines “blockchain” to include digital assets, virtual currency and smart contracts. Kentucky’s blockchain working group statute (KRS 42.747) defines “blockchain technology.” Wisconsin’s 2026 study committee charge, as republished by a legislative newsletter, defines “staking.” Illinois, New Jersey, Florida, Rhode Island and Louisiana describe blockchain in a recital without a formal definition. In practice, the task forces use “digital asset” as a working label and leave each member to supply the meaning.
The statutes that do define it
When a state wants a definition, it puts one in a statute, and the results differ. Wyoming’s 2019 digital assets law is the broadest: a digital asset is any representation of economic, proprietary or access rights stored in a computer-readable format, with no blockchain requirement, then sorted into digital consumer assets, digital securities and virtual currency. Arizona’s 2025 reserve and unclaimed property law (HB 2749) reaches virtual currencies, cryptocurrencies and “any other digital-only assets.” Delaware’s 2026 banking and stablecoin acts (SB 16 and SB 19) define it narrowly, as a record of value on a cryptographically secured distributed ledger. Delaware’s SB 18 defines only “virtual currency.” Colorado’s digital token act (as shown on a mirror site) defines “digital token,” and Louisiana’s virtual currency law defines “virtual currency” and “non-fungible token” but not “digital asset.” Delaware shows the gap: its 2026 statutes define the term while its task force resolution does not.
| Source | How it uses the term | Reaches beyond crypto? | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| State task force instruments (about 20 read) | Not defined; crypto and blockchain in practice | No mention found | Confirmed (texts read); Alabama not read |
| Executive Order 14067 | Value or claims issued or represented through distributed ledger technology | No | Confirmed |
| IRS and Form 1099-DA | Digital representation of value on a cryptographically secured ledger or similar technology | No; closed-loop points and game tokens excluded | Confirmed (IRS page); Reported (final rules) |
| Delaware SB 16 and SB 19 (2026) | Record of value on a cryptographically secured distributed ledger | No | Confirmed |
| Wyoming W.S. 34-29-101 | Any representation of economic, proprietary or access rights stored in a computer-readable format, in three categories | Yes, on its face; no ledger needed | Confirmed (2019 and 2021 enrolled acts) |
| Arizona HB 2749 (2025) | Virtual currencies, cryptocurrencies and “any other digital-only assets” with economic, proprietary or access rights | Yes, through the catch-all | Confirmed (act text read) |
| RUFADAA (Ohio, Texas and most states) | Any electronic record in which a person has a right or interest | Yes: email, social media, cloud photos, game items | Confirmed (uniform text; Ohio code); Reported (Texas mirror) |
| UCC Article 12 | “Controllable electronic record” | If controllable, in principle | Reported |
| Gartner glossary | Any digitally held item with benefit to an organization | Yes, websites included | Reported |
Sources: state enrolled texts and session laws; Executive Order 14067; IRS digital assets page; Uniform Law Commission RUFADAA text; Wyoming enrolled acts; Delaware engrossed bills; law-firm summaries for the 1099-DA rules and UCC Article 12; Gartner glossary. Confidence labels follow our tracker’s convention.
Beyond crypto: what can be a digital asset
The table below lists common non-crypto items and how the sources we read treat each one. A pattern runs through it: most of these items are governed by contract and platform terms rather than by classic property law, and courts have not settled whether many of them count as property at all. Under the broad definition they are digital assets. Whether you own them is a separate question.
| Item | How it is treated | Confidence |
|---|---|---|
| Email and messages | Named by RUFADAA. A fiduciary can generally get the log of senders, recipients and dates by default, but the content needs the user’s consent or a court order, and a provider’s own online tool outranks a will. | Confirmed (uniform text) |
| Social media accounts | Named by RUFADAA as an access example. Platform terms still control, and we found no final ruling settling whether an account or its followers are property. | Confirmed (text); no case found |
| Cloud photos and files | Named by RUFADAA. Your own creative work stays yours under ordinary copyright law, which the act does not change. | Confirmed |
| Domain names | Intangible property in the Ninth Circuit (Kremen v. Cohen, 2003). A Virginia Supreme Court decision (Network Solutions v. Umbro) treated a registration as a service contract creditors could not garnish. State law decides. | Confirmed (both opinions read) |
| Online store and seller accounts | Contract rights controlled by the platform. Shopify requires its consent to assign the terms, Etsy generally bars handing an account to someone else, and a federal bankruptcy opinion describes Amazon’s agreement as barring assignment without consent. We found no statute or case calling a seller account property. | Confirmed (terms and opinion read) |
| Game characters and items | Named by RUFADAA. Bragg v. Linden Lab (2007), a virtual land dispute, turned on an arbitration clause and did not decide whether virtual land is property. Closed-loop game tokens are outside the 1099-DA rules. | Confirmed (RUFADAA); Reported (Bragg, 1099-DA) |
| Loyalty points and airline miles | Contract rights under program terms. The Supreme Court allowed breach-of-contract claims over miles in American Airlines v. Wolens (1995) and described program terms as private obligations in Northwest v. Ginsberg (2014). | Confirmed (both opinions read) |
| Purchased software, e-books, music, movies | Generally licenses, not ownership of a copy, under Vernor v. Autodesk (9th Cir. 2010). California’s AB 2426, effective January 2025, limits sellers from implying ownership when the buyer gets a license. | Confirmed (Vernor); Reported (AB 2426) |
| Digital identity credentials | Utah’s 2025 state-endorsed digital identity law gives individuals control over disclosure and storage but does not call the identity property or an asset. | Confirmed (enrolled bill) |
| NFTs and tokenized assets | The IRS treats NFTs and other digital assets as property for tax purposes. SEC staff said in January 2026 that tokenized securities remain securities regardless of format. | Confirmed (IRS); Reported (SEC staff statement) |
Sources: Uniform Law Commission RUFADAA text; court opinions in Kremen, Umbro, Wolens, Ginsberg, Vernor and In re Cameo (Amazon); Shopify and Etsy terms; Utah SB 260; IRS digital assets page; law-firm summaries for Bragg, AB 2426 and the SEC staff statement. Confidence labels follow our tracker’s convention.
Domain names
Domain names are the clearest non-crypto example with a legal track record. In Kremen v. Cohen, the Ninth Circuit held that a registrant has an intangible property right in a domain name, applying a three-part test: the interest must be capable of precise definition, capable of exclusive control, and supported by a legitimate claim to exclusivity. It let a conversion claim go forward against the registrar that had transferred the name on a forged letter. The Virginia Supreme Court went the other way on a related question in Umbro, holding that a judgment creditor could not garnish a registrant’s contract right because a registration is the product of a service contract. Later bankruptcy and creditor cases split along similar lines, according to secondary sources, so treatment turns on state law and the court.
We did not find a state statute that names domain names or e-commerce accounts as “digital assets,” and none of the task force instruments we read mentions them. Wyoming’s broad definition could cover a domain registration on its face, and so could RUFADAA’s, although neither names one. That is our reading, not a statement in either law.
Why the definition matters
The scope of the term decides who is covered. A task force that studies “digital assets” but means crypto will not consider whether a state’s estate rules let heirs reach a domain portfolio or an online store. A reserve law that says “digital asset” and applies a market capitalization screen is really a bitcoin law. A tax reporting rule that reaches stablecoins and NFTs but not loyalty points draws a line that ordinary users may not expect. And a company that says it holds “digital assets” may mean something quite different from what a regulator hears.
For readers, the practical advice is simple: when you see the phrase in a bill, a task force charge or a company announcement, look for a definition section. If there is none, assume the narrow or middle layer and check how the body actually uses the term. Our state tracker lists which states have task forces, who leads them and where the founding documents are, so you can check the language yourself.
What we could not confirm
We could not access Alabama’s SJR 58 (2024) blockchain study commission text, so we cannot say whether it defines the term. We read Wisconsin’s 2026 committee charge through a republished copy because the official page was not reachable. New Hampshire’s commission statute was repealed effective November 1, 2026; an unofficial portal lists a final report as adopted on October 29, 2026, the state page showed no filing, and we have not read the report. For the statutes that do define the term, we read Wyoming through the 2019 and 2021 enrolled acts rather than the current codified section, and Texas’s RUFADAA provision on a mirror site. We could not confirm whether a 2024 Colorado bill repealed that state’s digital token act. We have no current RUFADAA enactment count from the Uniform Law Commission, no dated UCC Article 12 count, and we have not read the primary text of the final 1099-DA rules or the SEC staff statement. We will update this piece as we confirm more.
Further reading
- Executive Order 14067 on digital assets (CFR text)
- IRS: digital assets
- Revised Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act, with comments (Uniform Law Commission text)
- Wyoming SF 125 (2019), enrolled digital assets act
- Arizona HB 2749 (2025), Laws 2025, Chapter 150
- Ohio Revised Code 2137.01 (RUFADAA definitions)
- Kremen v. Cohen (9th Cir. 2003), opinion text
- Vernor v. Autodesk (9th Cir. 2010), opinion text
- Chapman and Cutler: digital assets amendments to the UCC (Article 12)
- Utah HB 335 (2022), enrolled text
- Maryland Chapter 548 (2026), enrolled text
- Texas HB 1576 (2021), bill text
- New Hampshire commission to study stable tokens (state page)
- New Hampshire RSA 6:8-d (strategic reserve statute)
- WilmerHale: market structure legislation and digital asset definitions (July 2025)
- Utah SB 260 (2025), state-endorsed digital identity
Frequently asked
Is a digital asset the same thing as cryptocurrency?
No, but they overlap. Cryptocurrency is one kind of digital asset. Many laws and task forces use “digital asset” to mean crypto and related blockchain assets such as stablecoins and NFTs, while broader definitions cover any electronic record in which a person has a right or interest.
Do state digital assets task forces define the term?
In every founding instrument we could read, no. Delaware’s 2026 resolution defines only the name “Task Force,” Louisiana’s final resolution and New Hampshire’s stable token commission statute define none of their key terms, and Maryland, Utah, Montana and Hawaii use the terms undefined. The few definitions inside task force texts are narrow: Texas’s 2021 law defines “blockchain,” Kentucky’s defines “blockchain technology,” and Wisconsin’s 2026 charge defines “staking.” We could not read Alabama’s resolution, so this is a finding about the texts we saw.
Which state laws define “digital asset”?
Wyoming (W.S. 34-29-101) defines it broadly as a representation of economic, proprietary or access rights stored in a computer-readable format. Arizona’s 2025 HB 2749 reaches virtual currencies, cryptocurrencies and any other digital-only assets. Delaware’s 2026 SB 16 and SB 19 define it narrowly, as value recorded on a cryptographically secured distributed ledger. States that adopted the uniform fiduciary access act, including Ohio and Texas, define it as any electronic record in which a person has a right or interest.
What is RUFADAA?
The Revised Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act is a 2015 Uniform Law Commission model law that lets an executor, agent, trustee or conservator manage a person’s digital assets, such as email, social media accounts, cloud photos and game characters. Reports put adoption at about 46 states plus the District of Columbia as of 2024. It governs access, not ownership, and the content of communications generally needs the user’s consent or a court order.
Is a domain name a digital asset?
Under broad definitions, yes. Courts in the United States have treated domain names as intangible property in some decisions, for example Kremen v. Cohen (9th Cir. 2003), while a Virginia Supreme Court decision treated a registration as a contract right creditors could not garnish. We found no statute that names domain names as digital assets, and the crypto-focused task force laws we read do not mention them.
What non-crypto items can be digital assets?
Under the broad definition, email accounts, social media accounts, cloud-stored photos and files, game characters and items, domain names, online store accounts, loyalty points and digital media can all qualify. Most are governed by platform terms and contracts, and courts have not settled whether many of them are property.
Are loyalty points or in-game items digital assets?
It depends on the definition. They can fit the broad “electronic record with value” meaning, and RUFADAA names game characters and in-game property, but according to law-firm summaries the final IRS Form 1099-DA rules exclude closed-loop loyalty rewards and game tokens that cannot leave the program. Courts have treated miles as contract rights under program terms.
What does the IRS count as a digital asset?
The IRS describes a digital asset as a digital representation of value recorded on a cryptographically secured distributed ledger or similar technology, and its examples include convertible virtual currency, stablecoins and NFTs. Digital assets are treated as property for federal tax purposes.