Abstract: There are differences in object orientation, forgery and regulatory path of counterfeiting digital currency, which need to be further clarified. “Currency” is an “empirical” legal concept, which should return to ontology and which clarifies that digital currency refers to central bank’s digital currency in the essence of consensus. Pure rational speculation makes the theory of forgery and the theory of unforgeability into an antinomy. From the deconstruction of technical practice, digital currency has the nature of forgery, including two ways of behavior: fake as real and using “truth” as real. On the path of incrimination, we should critically deconstruct the interpretation theory and legislation theory which are contrary to hermeneutics and typology. The act of forging digital currency is different from the constituent elements of the crime of forging currency, and the infringement of legal interest is independent, which cannot be criminalized through criminal law interpretation; the degree of social harm of the act of forging digital currency is different from that of intrusion into the system, illegal acquisition and possession of relevant information, and illegal use. Excessive categorization does not conform to the principle of proportionality between crime, responsibility, and punishment, and it is not appropriate to regularize the above acts as a crime. At the same time, from the perspective of monetary consensus inclusion, the revised single hypothesis is advocated, and the legislative path is adopted step by step. When the real currency and the digital currency coexist, the crime of forging digital currency is set up to form a dual regulation system with the crime of forging currency. When the currency consensus only includes digital currency, it returns to the unitary regulation system of the crime of counterfeiting currency.