On the program Ye Rozmova (Have a Conversation), the Governor of the National Bank of Ukraine, Andriy Pyshnyy, spoke about a decision that goes beyond numismatics: why the kopiyka is becoming a thing of the past, what the return of the shah signifies, its Ukrainian historical background, and whether this step is part of the broader derussification campaign aimed to remove Russian influence—linguistic, cultural, political, symbolic, or institutional—from Ukraine’s financial sector. He also shared details about the design of the new coin, what will help society adapt to it, and how its introduction into circulation may be assessed decades from now.
Q: You were effectively the initiator of the draft law under which the kopiyka is going to become history. Why the shah?
A: I very much hope that it won’t be long before the kopiyka will disappear entirely. In fact, this is an event we have all been waiting for, for at least 30 years. After all, this year the Ukrainian hryvnia marks its thirtieth anniversary.
Q: In September.
A: Yes. On September 2, 1996, the monetary reform began—one that was recognized as among the most effective worldwide in terms of logistics, communication, process organization, and overall impact. As we can see now, thirty years later, even despite the full-scale invasion, the hryvnia still enjoys public trust. That is a significant achievement, one that strengthens our capacity for resilience.
Yet even after three decades, our cash circulation still contains, so to speak, a remnant of debris left behind by Moscow. It continues to bind us. Invisibly, perhaps—but people have grown so accustomed to it that they often do not realize that the Ukrainian monetary system has its own distinct linguistic unit: the shah, which historically denotes a small coin.
Indeed, a year and a half ago—in September 2024—the National Bank of Ukraine initiated the relevant legislative changes that would allow us to stop minting the kopiyka and replace the name of the fractional coin—one hundredth of the national currency, the hryvnia—with the authentically Ukrainian term shah. I sincerely hope that in the coming weeks Parliament will adopt this decision.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the members of parliament who supported our initiative and co-sponsored the legislative package. First and foremost, the Speaker of Parliament, Ruslan Stefanchuk. As you know, the package carries the signatures of nearly the entire parliamentary leadership. This initiative united Parliament even during debate.
Yes, the discussions were intense—deeply ideological and historical. But at a certain point, it felt to me that Parliament was very strongly united in its determination to sever a connection imposed on us by Moscow.
Q: To what extent is the shah genuinely a Ukrainian term rather than simply an alternative to the Russian kopiyka? And what is its historical background?
A: It is a fully authentic Ukrainian term for a fractional coin that was historically used in monetary accounting. This is not a whim of the National Bank, nor an invention on our part. This fact is confirmed by historical research conducted by the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine—specifically by the Potebnia Institute of Linguistics and the Institute of History of Ukraine.
In addition, the shah is deeply embedded in Ukrainian culture. I was particularly struck by one study showing that more than one hundred proverbs and sayings contain the word shah. Only something that is truly characteristic of everyday Ukrainian life—something that is part of our collective identity—can become rooted in proverbs and folk expressions. If the word shah had not existed in daily usage, if it had not been inherently Ukrainian but rather something imposed from outside, it would never have taken hold in Ukrainian folklore.
Taras Shevchenko mentions shahs at least eleven times in his works. Lesya Ukrainka, Ivan Nechui-Levytsky, Panas Myrnyi, and Ivan Kotliarevsky—in Aeneid, for example—you will also find references to shahs.
Moreover, in 1917 the shah became the official fractional coin of the Ukrainian People's Republic. At that time, the young Ukrainian state adopted a package of legislative acts, and from 1917 to 1919 shahs were in circulation as one-hundredth of the Ukrainian hryvnia. It was only later that the communists reinstated the kopiyka.
Importantly, we also have an expert conclusion from the Ukrainian Institute of National Memory, which confirms these historical facts.
Q: For the National Bank of Ukraine, is this primarily a historical correction, or an element of the systematic derussification of Ukraine’s financial system?
A: A national currency is an attribute of statehood, just like the Constitution, the Anthem, or the Flag. Therefore, I would not separate what matters more to the National Bank: derussification, decolonization, the restoration of historical justice, or the formation of monetary circulation based on our own historical foundations that carry a deep identificational role. For us, all of this is interconnected.
At a certain point, when my team and I were debating whether this step should be taken, a shared thought emerged: how could it be otherwise? If not now, then when? Moscow, Minsk, and Kyiv are three capitals whose monetary circulation still shares a common denominator at the level of the smallest fractional coin—the kopiyka. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, only three former republics retained it in their monetary systems. All other former Soviet republics fully transitioned to their own historically rooted names.
In Ukraine, there was a political—and even expert—debate on this issue in the early 1990s. Few people know that the Luhansk Machine-Building Plant even minted an initial test batch of fractional coins at that time, and that experimental coin was the shah. However, the communist, Moscow-centered lobby prevailed, and the decision was made to retain the kopiyka.
Q: Can you offer a glimpse into the visual concept of the new coin?
A; I would say this is the most pleasant part of any discussion about the shah. It indicates that we have already covered a certain distance and that there are solid grounds to believe this will indeed happen—so it is time to talk about what a Ukrainian coin should look like. We will act quickly in making this decision, because everyone has been waiting for it. We very much want the National Bank to begin minting the Ukrainian coin immediately after the relevant package of legislative initiatives is adopted and signed by the President.
We will do everything in our power to ensure that certain historical aspects are reflected in the coin as well. After all, during the period of the Ukrainian People's Republic, Heorhii Narbut was involved in the design of the shah. At that time, however, it was not a coin but a currency stamp, because the young Ukrainian state could not afford to mint coins—an extremely complex and costly process. Nevertheless, shahs were in circulation. On the reverse side of the stamp—printed on thick paper—there was the inscription: “Circulates on par with a ringing coin.”
So we will move quickly. I hope that the number of coins the National Bank of Ukraine will be able to mint and put into circulation after replacing the kopiyka with the shah will also acquire a certain symbolic meaning.
Q: So, the shah will resemble a historical coin?
A: There was no historical coin as such. There was a shah as a fractional unit in the form of a stamp, and there were also test coins minted in the early 1990s, when the issue of replacing the kopiyka with the shah and introducing a Ukrainian coin was being discussed. But, as I mentioned above, the communists prevailed at that time. As a result, we will be developing a design that, I am confident, will take certain historical parallels into account, while also resonating with what we are experiencing today.
Q: Do you plan to make it visually distinctive so that people immediately notice that this is a new monetary unit, something special?
A: In terms of diameter and weight, the shah will not differ from the previous coin; the difference will be in the design.
Let me share a story that particularly resonates with me when I think about the difference between the kopiyka and the coin that will enter circulation. Imagine holding two coins in your palm: 50 kopiykas and 50 shahs. They have exactly the same nominal value. But if someone—perhaps your children—asks you what the difference is, you will begin telling a story that starts with the shah during the Hetmanate period, then continues through the Ukrainian People’s Republic. As a result, you will be able to explain very clearly—to yourself and to the person asking—what the difference in value is between 50 kopiykas and 50 shahs. And that difference will be obvious.
The value of the coin we will mint after the Ukrainian parliament adopts what I consider a historic decision will be self-evident. There is one more important point. The hryvnia will mark its thirtieth anniversary, but in fact we view the replacement of the kopiyka with the shah as the completion of the monetary reform.
Q: A thirty-year completion of the monetary reform.
A: Yes. This is, in fact, the final completion of the concept that was implemented in 1996, when the hryvnia was introduced but a certain continuity of monetary circulation with Moscow and Minsk was nevertheless preserved. Now we are breaking that link definitively. That is why, when this topic is discussed, I often hear attempts to downplay it, to portray it as something insignificant.
Q: Many people say that such a change is ill-timed and that it will confuse the public. Why introduce this change if the denomination will be the same as 50 kopiykas? To what extent do you believe society will adapt easily? Is there a forecast?
A: You know, this conversation is not really about a fractional coin at all. It is a conversation about identity, monetary reform, the attributes of statehood, sovereignty, national unity, and a final rupture with Moscow in such a fundamental area as monetary circulation. You are probably aware that the ruble zone follows Russian occupying forces into the territories they attempt to seize from us. Immediately. This is effectively the first thing that follows Russian occupation—the ruble zone.
Thus, when you hear that this is merely about a small coin, you can quite consciously, calmly, and reasonably object: no, this is about statehood, sovereignty, justice, and the final severing of imposed ties.
Very few people even knew that Ukraine has its own native Ukrainian name for a fractional coin— one that is deeply embedded in folklore, recognized by society and Ukrainian cultural production, genuinely native, and formally enshrined in the legislation of the Ukrainian People’s Republic. Then came the Soviet period, which erased this from history.
When we were conducting our research, archival materials surfaced, including a case opened by the OGPU against the government of the Ukrainian People’s Republic. Two pieces of evidence struck me. The first was a Ukrainian coat of arms cut from cloth, which the OGPU used as proof of the UPR’s “guilt.” The second was shahs and Ukrainian hryvnias—as further evidence that the Ukrainian People’s Republic had existed, which, from Moscow’s perspective, was considered a crime.
No, this was not a crime. It was a historical inevitability. We exist. And the fact that, thirty years after the monetary reform, the Ukrainian parliament will finally place a clear, substantial, and unequivocal full stop on this issue will demonstrate that monetary circulation is an integral part of Ukrainian sovereignty. It must be built exclusively on our own historical names and roots. We have them.
Q: Let’s talk in terms of numbers. According to media reports, since 2019 coins with denominations of 1, 5, and 25 kopiykas have been withdrawn from circulation. And now there are effectively (please correct me if this is not accurate) about 800 tonnes of them. They require disposal and will be disposed of once the 50-kopiyka coin is withdrawn from circulation. Disposal requires special equipment. As far as I know, such a machine has already been ordered. Could you explain how this will work in practice? Where should people bring their 50-kopiyka coins?
A: In fact, this is an entirely standard process carried out by the National Bank of Ukraine and our Banknote and Minting Facility in order to maintain sufficient and high-quality cash circulation. How many coins do you think are currently in circulation overall?
Q: Well, probably several billion.
A: More than 14 billion. A portion of these coins loses its quality characteristics through circulation. The National Bank of Ukraine, through the banking system, withdraws such coins and mints replacements whenever necessary in order to maintain both the qualitative and quantitative parameters of cash circulation. Coins that are withdrawn require disposal.
Since 2019, extraordinarily large volumes have accumulated—about 800 tonnes. Given that we have decided to gradually withdraw the 10-kopiyka coin from circulation, the volume of coins subject to disposal will increase to approximately 1,200 tonnes. At the same time, we see and hear from the retail sector that there remains a need for a denomination of 50—unfortunately still kopiykas for now. I very much hope that in the near future this will be 50 shahs. This denomination will remain in circulation for several more years.
To maintain the required quality and quantity of coins in circulation, the National Bank needs to mint between 20 and 30 million coins annually. I often hear claims that there are no coins in circulation at all, so let us clarify this. How many 50-kopiyka coins do you think are currently in circulation?
Q: One and a half billion.
A: One and a half billion. That is why we will continue minting them to maintain the quantitative and qualitative parameters of cash circulation. These new coins—50 shahs—will gradually, and most likely, acquire a certain symbolic and collectible value. However, for some time they will continue to serve their primary function in cash circulation. After a certain period, it is entirely possible that they will be withdrawn due to wear and tear, which will again require an operational disposal model.
Moreover, the coin disposal process carried out by the National Bank will make it possible, through the sale of scrap metal obtained from disposed coins, to raise an estimated UAH 120–130 million. In addition, disposal is itself a lengthy process. If we had not purchased additional new equipment, the disposal of the coins already accumulated today would have taken at least ten years. With the new production capacity provided by the acquired machinery, we expect to reduce this timeframe to four or five years.
There is, however, an important point: we will not withdraw the 50-kopiyka coin from circulation even when we begin minting the 50-shah coin. They will circulate in parallel and will, in essence, have identical technical characteristics—the same diameter and weight.
Q: You have announced the introduction of the shah in September this year. How do you think historians will assess this decision in 50 or 100 years? And can we state that Ukraine’s currency reform will be completed with the introduction of the shah?
A: On September 2, 2024, when we initiated this discussion, I expected it to move much faster. However, at a certain point I realized how deep the level of public interest in this topic actually was. Many people—often encountering this issue for the first time—became genuinely interested in the fact that Ukraine has its own native name for a fractional coin, and that this name is not kopiyka but shah. The kopiyka is something associated with Russia and that links us to it.
I saw how this discussion brought to the surface significant layers of information that were necessary for collective self-awareness. I am convinced that the overwhelming majority of people can no longer wait for the shah to be introduced.
Q: I can hardly wait myself!
A: When I looked at the audience during the presentation of the film about the shah, created by the very talented group MUR, I saw young people aged 18–20. And do you know who they are? Agents of influence. Each of them will go to their parents and tell them the story of Heorhii Narbut, of the shahs, of the Ukrainian People's Republic. They will ask: why was this not done earlier?
That is why I am one hundred percent certain that, on a historical horizon of 50 to 100 years, this decision will be unequivocally regarded as the right one—one that logically completes the monetary reform launched in 1996, represents the final stage of derussification and decolonization, and establishes cash circulation based exclusively on Ukraine’s own historical foundations.
Q: Have there been cases globally where the names of monetary units changed without changing the money itself, or is the Ukrainian case unique in this respect?
A: Globally, this practice is fairly common—cases where the name of the main currency remains unchanged while the name of the fractional coin changes, or vice versa. For example, in Israel, on August 16, 1948, the Israeli pound was introduced, equal to one thousand prutot. After January 1, 1960, one Israeli pound was divided into one hundred agorot. Similar changes took place in Yemen, Croatia, Argentina, Brazil, and Japan.
There is even a historical example from the Austria-Hungary: in Austria, the fractional unit of the crown was the heller, while in Hungary it was the filler. The coins had different designs but circulated simultaneously and at parity throughout the empire. So, over the course of human history, many different arrangements have existed. To claim that Ukraine is engaged in something unprecedented would be inaccurate. In my view, we are simply completing a process that was started earlier. What is required for this is that the Ukrainian parliament adopt the necessary decision with the same unity and consensus, and that the National Bank of Ukraine promptly introduce into circulation a coin that reflects our historical roots and identity.
Q: Critics of this decision argue that today one cannot buy anything for 50 kopiykas, and that it would therefore make more sense to withdraw such coins from circulation altogether. Instead, we are introducing the shah, effectively of the same value. How long will the shah remain in circulation? And beyond its significance for statehood, what does it mean to you personally?
A: It is a fractional coin that will remain in circulation and participate in price formation for a certain period. Fractional coins play a role in everyday transactions. The fact that at least 1.5 billion 50-kopiyka coins are currently in circulation, and that retail chains request additional minting, indicates that the monetary system still requires a fractional coin to remain in use for some time. Regardless of how long this period lasts, there must be an authentically Ukrainian coin in circulation as one-hundredth of the hryvnia.
As is often the case, there are arguments commonly used to try to diminish the importance of this discussion. The first is that “this is not the right time.” In my firm conviction, our aspiration—and the unity we currently see in Parliament regarding the restoration of an authentic Ukrainian name—is nothing other than an attempt (one I strongly believe will succeed) to reclaim our own name. When does this matter? When is it timely? Always. If this was not done earlier, then it must be done now—and as soon as possible.
The second argument raised by opponents concerns costs to the ational budget. I would like to use this opportunity to make an official statement once again, for which I am personally responsible as Governor of the National Bank: this initiative entails no additional expenditures from the country’s national budget.
Q: Thank you.
Khrystia Ravliuk led this conversation
Watch the conversation in full on Ukrinform YouTube channel.
Photo credit: National Bank of Ukraine