Tuesday, May 26, 2026
Today's Edition

EveryNews

Stories that matter, signal over noise

Finances

602 amendments, three taken into account: how the "шаг" law became a political test for the Rada

Hundreds of amendments delayed the vote and revealed how painful even a technical change to a national monetary tradition can be. We examine what happened and why it matters to everyone.

Oleg Bazylewicz

By Oleg Bazylewicz

December 29, 2025 · 2 min read

602 amendments, three taken into account: how the "шаг" law became a political test for the Rada

What happened

For the bill to rename the kopiyka to the “shah”, deputies submitted 602 amendments. The relevant committee accepted only three of them (and two more editorially). Due to the large number of proposals, the plenary vote was moved to January 13, the explanatory note to the second reading reports.

Details of amendments and political context

The main editorial change — the word “de-Sovietization” was removed from the text, and the law received the official title: “On Amendments to Certain Laws of Ukraine Regarding Bringing the Name of Ukraine’s Small Change Coin into Accordance with the National Monetary Tradition.” Obviously, this is an attempt to avoid political overtones in the wording.

Some of the submitted amendments were clearly unprofessional or purely playful. Among the name options proposed by one of the most active authors of amendments — People’s Deputy Oleksandr Yurchenko (group “Restoration of Ukraine”) — were pivhryvnia, zlatnyk, sribnyk, yarmak, krok, shostak, troyak, hrysh and dozens of other historical and invented variants. This was more a test of political attention than serious legislative work.

Another group of amendments concerned technical aspects: terms for entry into force — from 2.5 to 36 months; options like “after N days following the lifting of martial law” (from 1 to 100 days); and complex combinations of staggered introductions. Some amendments even proposed changing the ratio between the old and the new unit — not 1:1, but from 1:2 to 1:100.

"Because of such a number of amendments, the vote has been postponed to January 13."

— Yaroslav Zheleznyak, People’s Deputy (Holos)

Why this matters for the reader

This is not just a question of a name. The decision affects national symbolism, the logistics of cash circulation, and the costs for the state and the private sector (marking, accounting, change-dispensing machines). In addition, such discussions show how vulnerable legislative initiatives can be to political speculations and tactical delays.

There is institutional support: the idea to restore the name “shah” for small-change coins was first put forward by the National Bank in 2024, and it was supported by the Institute of History, the Institute of Linguistics, and the Ukrainian Institute of National Remembrance. This gives the project legitimacy beyond political rhetoric.

What’s next

The committee accepted only a tiny portion of the amendments; the remainder looks like a way to drag out the process or to test public attention. Now the course of events will depend on whether deputies can quickly filter out the technical and farcical proposals and move to a final vote, or whether the discussion will turn into yet another protracted political squabble.

A question for legislators and the administration: will they turn declarations of support into practical decisions without unnecessary costs and confusion for businesses and citizens?

Related

Latest

Business

EU Against Google: Why the Latest Fine Could Change More Than Previous Ones

# European Regulators Target Google Again — This Time Over Digital Markets Act Violations. What's Behind the Accusations and Why It Matters Beyond the Corporation European regulators have renewed their scrutiny of Google, this time focusing on alleged violations of the Digital Markets Act. The charges underscore Brussels' increasingly aggressive stance on big tech monopolies and what officials say are anticompetitive practices. The accusations center on how Google leverages its dominance across multiple digital services — from search to advertising to mobile platforms — to disadvantage competitors. Regulators claim the company is using its market power in ways that stifle innovation and limit consumer choice. The case carries significance far beyond Google itself. It signals how the EU is attempting to enforce its landmark Digital Markets Act, legislation designed to curb the gatekeeping power of tech giants. A potential penalty could set precedent for how other large technology companies face similar scrutiny. For consumers and smaller tech firms, the outcome could reshape the digital landscape by creating more room for competition. For Google, fines and operational restrictions could fundamentally alter its business model in Europe, the world's most stringent regulatory market. The case also reflects a broader geopolitical divide, with the EU pursuing a regulatory approach that contrasts sharply with the lighter-touch oversight favored in the United States.

May 26, 2026