
Regulatory Framework for Token Exchanges
Centralized exchanges require authorization/registration in every major jurisdiction; DEXs generally remain outside licensing only where no intermediary/persons operate or control the service. Token classification drives the rule set: security tokens trigger securities/market rules; utility/payment tokens sit under bespoke crypto regimes; stablecoins face dedicated, stricter frameworks (issuer authorization, reserves/redemption). Core obligations converge: full AML/KYC (incl. Travel Rule), governance/fit-and-proper, prudential and tech-risk controls, market-conduct/surveillance, disclosures, and incident reporting.
The EU’s Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) Regulation establishes a unified licensing regime for crypto-asset service providers (CASPs), including operators of crypto trading platforms. Under MiCA, exchanges of crypto-assets (except those qualifying as traditional financial instruments) must obtain authorization from an EU Member State regulator and meet prudential, governance, and investor protection standards. Decentralized exchanges without any intermediary fall outside MiCA’s scope. MiCA classifies tokens as asset-referenced tokens (stablecoins tied to assets or multiple currencies), e-money tokens (single-fiat stablecoins), or utility tokens, and imposes extra compliance for stablecoin issuers. EU AML laws separately require all CASPs (including exchanges) to conduct KYC and register for AML supervision. Enforcement is coordinated via national authorities with Union-wide standards for penalties and the ability to suspend trading or revoke licenses for non-compliance.
Currently, the UK subjects crypto exchanges to AML registration and oversight, while a comprehensive exchange licensing regime is in development. Under the Money Laundering Regulations, any “cryptoasset exchange provider” – defined as a business exchanging digital assets for money or other cryptoassets – must register with the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and comply with AML/CTF rules. Security tokens (which constitute specified investments) already fall under the existing Financial Services and Markets Act (FSMA) licensing. In 2023–2025 the UK government has moved to bring broad crypto trading within the regulatory perimeter: the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 recognized “digital settlement assets” (stablecoins) and empowered HMT to create new regulated activities for operating a crypto exchange and other services. Draft legislation (published April 2025) proposes that operating a cryptoasset trading platform and issuing stablecoins will require FCA authorization similar to traditional financial services. Until that regime is live, UK exchanges remain mostly unregulated beyond AML obligations and upcoming restrictions on marketing; however, robust compliance with custody, segregation, and security standards is expected in anticipation of the new framework (with enforcement via the FCA’s existing powers over registered firms and anti-fraud laws).
Swiss law differentiates tokens by function and regulates exchanges accordingly. The Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority (FINMA) classifies payment tokens (cryptocurrencies used as means of payment), utility tokens (access to an application/service), and asset tokens (analogous to securities). Payment token exchanges are not subject to securities law but are deemed financial intermediaries – they must self-regulate or be licensed for AML purposes. Asset tokens (security tokens) and exchanges dealing in them fall under securities law requirements (prospectus, licensing as securities dealers or trading venues). In 2021, Switzerland introduced a DLT Trading Facility license for blockchain-based trading systems: any exchange permitting multilateral trading of DLT securities (e.g. tokenized equities or bonds) with retail access or performing central custody/settlement must obtain FINMA authorization under the Financial Market Infrastructure Act. There is no separate license for pure cryptocurrency (non-security) trading platforms beyond AML registration, but many Swiss crypto brokers voluntarily adhere to standards via FINMA-supervised SROs. Stablecoins are treated on a case-by-case basis: FINMA’s guidance notes that a CHF-pegged or asset-backed token may be considered a deposit (triggering banking law) or a security, depending on its structure. FINMA has warned of increased AML risks in stablecoin arrangements and requires issuers or guarantors to meet prudential safeguards.
Overall, Swiss regulators emphasize technology-neutral principles: crypto exchanges must either fit into an existing regulatory category (and get that license) or limit activities to remain outside regulated financial markets, all while complying with AML obligations under the Swiss Anti-Money Laundering Act.
Singapore imposes full regulatory licensing on both centralized exchanges and certain decentralized asset services under its Payment Services Act 2019 (PSA). Operating a crypto exchange is regulated as providing a “digital payment token service,” which covers buying/selling digital tokens or facilitating the exchange of digital tokens between parties as a business.
Such providers must obtain a license from the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) – typically a Major Payment Institution license if volumes exceed set thresholds – and comply with requirements on technology risk management, user asset safeguarding, and AML/CFT (per MAS Notice PSN02). Exchanges that list security tokens or derivatives are instead regulated under securities laws (the Securities and Futures Act): they may need recognition as an approved exchange or a licensed market operator, unless operating under MAS sandbox relief.
In 2023, MAS finalized a new framework for single-currency stablecoins (SCS) aimed at regulating issuers (requiring reserve backing, redemption at par, and prudential standards). While this framework primarily targets issuers, exchanges dealing in stablecoins may only list MAS-regulated SCS or properly vetted foreign stablecoins, as part of their obligation to ensure the suitability of tokens offered.
Singapore explicitly bans exchanges from offering bank-like returns on tokens and from facilitating token lending/staking for retail users without further regulatory approval.
Overall, Singapore’s regime is strict on AML/KYC (all crypto exchanges must identify customers and report suspicious transactions, per PSA and MAS Notices) and is expanding investor protections (new rules in 2024 require segregation of customer assets and prohibit misuse of customer tokens). Enforcement is handled by MAS, which has powers to inspect, impose fines, or revoke licenses for non-compliance, and has notably fined or shut down unlicensed operators.
Hong Kong has implemented a dual licensing regime to regulate all centralized virtual asset trading platforms. Under the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorist Financing Ordinance (AMLO) as amended in 2022, any business operating a “virtual asset service” (defined essentially as running a virtual asset exchange) in Hong Kong or actively marketing to Hong Kong investors must be licensed by the Securities and Futures Commission (SFC).
This VASP licensing regime (effective 1 June 2023) requires platforms offering trading of non-security cryptoassets (e.g. Bitcoin, Ether) to obtain an SFC license, meet fit-and-proper tests, and comply with detailed codes on custody (e.g. storing 98% of client assets in cold wallets), financial soundness, risk disclosures, and AML/KYC. Decentralized platforms without a centralized operator are not currently licensed (the law targets persons providing the service), but the SFC has warned that even automated protocols may fall under regulation if Hong Kong personnel are involved.
Separately, platforms that trade security tokens (tokens constituting “securities” under Hong Kong law) have long been regulated under the Securities and Futures Ordinance (SFO) – they need Type 1 (dealing) and Type 7 (automated trading) licenses and are subject to securities laws. In practice, major exchanges in HK now apply for both regimes to cover all token types.
The HKMA has announced that algorithmic stablecoins will not be accepted and fiat-backed stablecoins will require regulatory approval to be used for payments.Hong Kong was an early adopter of FATF’s Travel Rule for crypto transactions, and licensed VA exchanges must continuously monitor transactions and file suspicious activity reports. Enforcement includes criminal penalties for operating unlicensed (up to HK$5 million fines and 7 years’ imprisonment) and SFC administrative sanctions on licensed firms (such as fines, license suspension) for misconduct.
-
Utility Tokens: Digital tokens lacking investment or pegged-value features (mere “virtual commodities”) fall outside Hong Kong’s securities and payment regulations. Issuers of pure utility tokens are not subject to licensing or prospectus requirements, absent features that would classify the token as a security or other regulated instrument.
-
Security Tokens: Tokens with characteristics of shares, debt, or investment schemes are deemed “securities” under the Securities and Futures Ordinance (Cap. 571). Their issuance is regulated like any traditional security: offering security tokens to the public requires compliance with prospectus registration or SFC authorization unless an exemption applies. Dealing in or advising on such tokens is a Type 1 regulated activity requiring an SFC license. Unauthorized public offerings of security tokens contravene Hong Kong law.
-
Stablecoins: Fiat-referenced stablecoins are now governed by the Stablecoins Ordinance (Ord. 17 of 2025). Issuing or managing a stablecoin that purports to maintain stable value (e.g. pegged to fiat) is a regulated activity overseen by the Hong Kong Monetary Authority. Only permitted offerors – licensed stablecoin issuers, SFC-licensed virtual asset platforms, SFC-licensed securities dealers, stored value facility licensees, or authorized banks – may offer stablecoins to the public. Unlicensed stablecoin issuance or offering is prohibited by law, with heavy criminal penalties (up to HK$5 million fine and 7 years’ imprisonment on indictment).
-
Licensed vs Unlicensed Issuance: Hong Kong distinguishes regulated token issuance (which must be conducted by licensed or authorized entities) from unlawful, unlicensed offerings. Licensed issuers of security tokens must ensure full compliance with disclosure obligations – e.g. an SFC-vetted prospectus for public offers – and adhere to conduct standards under securities laws. Licensed stablecoin issuers are subject to prudential and conduct requirements under the HKMA’s regime, including maintaining 1:1 high-quality reserves backing outstanding stablecoins and publishing a detailed white paper with transparent information for users. In contrast, unlicensed issuers have virtually no lawful avenue to market security tokens or stablecoins to the Hong Kong public; doing so triggers statutory prohibitions (e.g. SFO advertisement offences and stablecoin Ordinance offences).
-
Disclosure and Conduct Duties: Regulatory frameworks impose ongoing duties on licensed token issuers. A stablecoin licensee must publish and maintain a current white paper for each stablecoin, disclosing its issuance/redemption mechanics, holder rights, and technological underpinnings as guided by HKMA. Stablecoin issuers must also ensure the market value of reserve assets always meets or exceeds the par value of tokens in circulation, with reserves held in the same reference asset and subject to regular independent audit. Moreover, paying interest on stablecoins is forbidden to licensed issuers, preventing stablecoins from functioning as interest-bearing deposits. Similar principles of truthful disclosure and investor protection apply to security token offerings under existing securities law (e.g. no misleading statements in offering documents, compliance with SFC’s Code of Conduct by intermediaries).
-
-
Dubai’s Virtual Assets Regulatory Authority (VARA) requires token issuers to obtain a VARA permit for regulated virtual asset activities (e.g. offering or selling “Virtual Tokens”) within Dubai (excluding the DIFC free zone). Under Dubai Law No. 4 of 2022, any person issuing virtual assets in Dubai must establish a local entity and be licensed by VARA (especially for Category 1 issuances such as stablecoins). VARA’s framework mandates comprehensive disclosure (Whitepapers) and ongoing compliance for token offerings, and strictly controls marketing of virtual assets, including by foreign issuers targeting Dubai.
-
At the UAE federal level, the Securities and Commodities Authority (SCA) is the primary regulator of virtual assets outside the financial free zones. Cabinet Decision 111/2022 (in force 14 Jan 2023) requires SCA licensing and oversight for key virtual asset activities (exchange, transfer, custody, brokerage, etc.), while carving out payment tokens under Central Bank jurisdiction. Pursuant to Cabinet Decision 112/2022, Dubai’s VARA is formally delegated to license and supervise virtual asset activities within Dubai in coordination with SCA.
-
Security tokens (digital tokens conferring rights similar to stocks, bonds, or other securities) are excluded from the “virtual asset” regime and instead treated as securities under UAE law. Issuers of security tokens must comply with SCA’s securities offering regulations (e.g. public offer prospectus requirements or private placement limits) and cannot rely on VARA’s virtual asset license; any public token offering that constitutes a security requires prior SCA approval and registration in accordance with federal securities laws.
-
Utility tokens and other non-security virtual assets are regulated as “Virtual Assets.” In onshore UAE, SCA rules (as updated in 2023) generally permit offerings only to qualified investors or through regulated platforms, with SCA approval required for public (retail) sales. In Dubai, VARA’s 2023 Issuance Rulebook similarly distinguishes permitted offerings: Category 1 issuances (e.g. fiat-referenced stablecoins or high-risk tokens) require a full VARA license and prior approval, whereas other Category 2 utility token issuances (non-stablecoin, non-security tokens) do not require a VARA license but must still meet VARA’s disclosure and conduct standards (including publishing an approved Whitepaper and risk warnings). Certain limited-scope tokens (e.g. truly non-transferable or closed-loop tokens) are exempt from VARA’s licensing and disclosure rules.
-
Payment tokens (stablecoins) are tightly controlled. Central Bank of the UAE regulations (Circular No. 2/2024) establish a licensing regime for “Payment Token” services, effective 2024–2025, which restricts crypto payment use to licensed AED-pegged stablecoins. Unlicensed acceptance of volatile cryptocurrencies (e.g. Bitcoin, Ether) for payments is prohibited onshore. A token issuer intending to issue a stablecoin for UAE users must obtain a CBUAE license and comply with prudential rules (e.g. maintaining 100% reserve assets in segregated custody with qualified custodians), in addition to any VARA licensing if operating in Dubai. This ensures consumer protection and financial stability in the use of crypto for payments.
-
All token issuers in Dubai and UAE must adhere to strict disclosure obligations. VARA requires publication of a detailed Whitepaper and standalone Risk Disclosure Statement before any token sale or promotion, with ongoing updates to keep information accurate. The Whitepaper must include prescribed content (issuer’s identity, project description, rights and risks, use of proceeds, etc.) and cannot disclaim liability for false or misleading statements. Federal rules likewise mandate filing of offering documents with SCA for token sales and an SCA-approved prospectus for public offerings. Custodial safeguards are also imposed: token issuers raising funds from the public must typically use licensed UAE custodians or escrow arrangements to hold investor assets. For example, stablecoin issuers under VARA’s rules must hold fiat reserves with authorized custodians and segregate them from the issuer’s own funds, ensuring redemption rights are protected.
-
Crypto asset marketing and promotions in the UAE are subject to strict regulation. VARA’s Marketing Regulation (Administrative Order 1 of 2022, as updated 2024) applies extra-territorially to “any” person (domestic or foreign) who markets virtual assets “in or targeting” Dubai/UAE consumers, regardless of licensing status. All crypto advertisements must be fair, clear and not misleading, clearly identified as marketing, and include prominent consumer warnings (e.g. that crypto assets are volatile and can lose value in full). Misleading or unwarranted statements (e.g. claims that crypto investing is “safe” or guaranteed) are expressly prohibited. Entities that facilitate marketing (publishers, social media platforms, influencers) are obliged to ensure compliance with these rules. Violations can trigger VARA enforcement actions, including substantial fines and suspension of activities under Administrative Order 2 of 2022 (Penalties).
-
Cross-border token issuance into the UAE is tightly controlled. A foreign token issuer may not offer or advertise tokens to UAE/Dubai investors without local regulatory compliance. Dubai law requires any person conducting virtual asset business in the Emirate to incorporate locally and obtain VARA approval before launch. Similarly, SCA regulations deem overseas token offerings as regulated activities “within the UAE” if UAE investors are targeted. In practice, a foreign issuer must either partner with a locally licensed firm or obtain its own UAE license (through VARA or SCA as applicable) before marketing or selling tokens to the public. UAE authorities coordinate to enforce these requirements: VARA and SCA have a unified mechanism to supervise VASPs and share fees/fines for cross-border activities. In sum, no regulatory arbitrage is allowed – token sales cannot legally be “passported” into Dubai/UAE from abroad without compliance.
-
All token issuers (whether UAE-based or foreign) must comply with UAE anti-money-laundering (AML/CFT) laws and any sectoral rules. Licensees are subject to ongoing supervision by VARA/SCA, including audits and reporting. Non-compliance can lead to license revocation, fines, or criminal referrals under UAE law. The regulatory framework as of August 23 2025 is comprehensive and still evolving, but its core principle is clear: investor protection and market integrity are paramount in Dubai and the UAE’s approach to crypto token issuance.
-
-
[Panama] Crypto Law Void, No Specific Crypto Statute: Panama currently lacks any dedicated crypto-asset legislation. A 2022 bill to regulate cryptoassets and Virtual Asset Service Providers (VASPs) was vetoed and struck down as unconstitutional in 2023. Thus, no special licensing regime exists for cryptocurrency businesses; oversight defaults to general securities and AML laws.
-
[Panama] Utility Tokens Unregulated by Securities Regime: The Panamanian Superintendencia del Mercado de Valores (SMV) has officially opined that cryptocurrencies and other virtual assets are not “valores” (securities) or financial instruments under Panama’s Securities Market Law, and their offer or trading are not activities subject to [SMV] regulation or supervision. Utility token ICOs to the public fall outside securities law, meaning no prospectus or registration is required when the token carries no debt/equity characteristics. (The SMV has warned investors that such offerings are high-risk and unregulated)
-
[Panama] Security Tokens Under Existing Securities Law: Crypto tokens may be deemed securities if they confer rights akin to stocks, bonds, fund units, or other “valores.” In substance, a token representing equity in a company or shares in an investment fund would be treated as a security, requiring compliance with Panama’s securities framework. Any public offering of such security tokens to retail investors must be registered with the SMV and accompanied by a prospectus, as mandated by the securities law. However, private or limited offerings to accredited investors are exempt – e.g. Panama allows unregistered private offerings if to ≤50 investors or only to “inversionistas calificados” (qualified investors) with a minimum subscription of US$100,000supervalores.gob.pasupervalores.gob.pa. In practice, many tokenized funds or DAO investment tokens are structured to fall under these private placement exemptions in Panama.
-
[Panama] No Crypto-Specific License, But AML Applies via Other Laws: There is presently no requirement to obtain a financial license solely to issue tokens or operate a crypto exchange in Panama, so long as the activity does not involve regulated securities or brokerage services. The SMV explicitly confirmed that a Panama company dealing exclusively in cryptoassets (with no fiat or securities) “is not obligated to obtain an investment advisor or broker-dealer license” under current law. Nevertheless, general Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Combating the Financing of Terrorism (CFT) laws still apply. Crypto businesses in Panama may voluntarily implement Know-Your-Customer (KYC) controls, and they often interact with regulated banks (which impose KYC/AML checks on crypto-related accounts). Panama’s AML Law 23/2015 and related regulations list obligated entities (banks, money transmitters, securities firms, etc.), but VASPs are not yet explicitly included. Bringing Panama’s regime into line with FATF standards remains a work in progress (Panama was only removed from FATF’s “grey list” in Oct 2023 after strengthening its AML framework). Pending legislation is expected to formalize VASP obligations (including mandatory KYC and reporting), but as of August 2025 no such law is in force.
-
[BVI] Comprehensive VASP Legal Framework Implemented: The British Virgin Islands has enacted the Virtual Assets Service Providers Act, 2022 (the “VASP Act”), in force since February 1, 2023. Any entity incorporated or operating in or from the BVI that provides “virtual asset services” must be registered with the BVI Financial Services Commission (FSC) as a VASP. Covered “virtual asset services” are defined broadly to include: exchanging virtual assets for fiat or other virtual assets, transferring virtual assets for others, safekeeping/custody of virtual assets, and “participation in financial services related to an issuer’s offer or sale of a virtual asset” (which captures activities around ICOs). The law deems a BVI business providing services outside the territory as doing so “from within” the BVI, so purely offshore token sales by a BVI company are not exempt. Operating a VASP without registration is a criminal offense punishable by fines up to US$100,000 and/or 5 years’ imprisonment. This regime makes the BVI one of the jurisdictions with a clear licensing pathway for crypto exchanges, custodians, and token issuers.
-
[BVI] Utility Tokens vs. Securities – Dual Regulation: The BVI distinguishes utility tokens from security tokens under its laws. Pure virtual assets (e.g. cryptocurrencies or utility tokens) are generally not classified as “investments” under BVI’s Securities and Investment Business Act, 2010 (SIBA). Instead, they are treated as a new asset class regulated mainly through the VASP Act. However, if a token has the features of a traditional security, it will fall under SIBA’s scope. For example, tokens representing equity ownership, debt (bonds/notes), profit-sharing rights, or interests in a fund are treated as securities (“investments”) under Schedule 1 of SIBA, regardless of their digital form. In such cases, both regimes apply: the issuer may need to register as a VASP and comply with SIBA’s requirements. The law mandates a case-by-case analysis of a token’s characteristics – a token conferring rights “beyond a medium of exchange” (e.g. governance or revenue rights) may trigger SIBA. Notably, tokenized fund units are explicitly within SIBA’s ambit (they constitute interests in a collective investment scheme) and must adhere to BVI fund. In sum, utility tokens (for consumptive use or payment) are regulated solely under the VASP Act, whereas security tokens face the additional layer of securities regulation.
-
[BVI] Offering Tokens: Retail Offerings vs. Accredited/Exempt Offers: The VASP Act and SIBA collectively ensure investor protection in public token offerings. Any public offering of virtual assets in the BVI requires regulatory authorization. In particular, offering a token to the general public in or from the BVI necessitates the issuer’s registration as a VASP with the FSC (to supervise the offering for AML/CFT and consumer risks). Furthermore, if the token is a security, a full prospectus compliant with SIBA’s Public Issuers Code must be filed and approved by the FSC before any public sale. Exemptions: Offers that are limited to sophisticated investors are carved out from some requirements. For example, under SIBA, an offering made only to “qualified investors” (professional investors), or to a restricted circle (e.g. existing shareholders or the government), is exempt from the public issuance rules. Qualified investor is defined in SIBA (mirroring “professional investor”) to include regulated institutions, listed companies, or high-net-worth individuals meeting financial thresholds. Similarly, the BVI’s fund regimes allow “private” or “professional” tokenized funds (limited to ≤50 investors or investors with ≥$100k subscriptions) to operate with lighter regulation, whereas retail collective investment offerings would require full FSC mutual fund registration. In practice, most BVI token offerings are structured as private sales to accredited investors or conducted outside the BVI to avoid triggering public issuance rules.
-
[BVI] AML/KYC and Compliance Obligations: BVI imposes AML/CFT compliance on all virtual asset businesses. The VASP Act mandates VASPs to implement customer due diligence, record-keeping, and reporting measures in line with the territory’s AML laws. Failure to maintain required KYC records or to institute adequate AML systems is an offense carrying up to US$100,000 fines and 5-year imprisonment. BVI-registered VASPs are supervised by the FSC’s Enforcement and AML units and must adhere to the Anti-Money Laundering Regulations and Terrorist Financing Code of Practice (which were updated to cover VASPs). In short, BVI VASPs must know their token purchasers and source of funds, monitor for suspicious activity, and comply with international sanctions, similar to requirements on traditional financial institutions. Panama, by contrast, has no specific VASP AML regulation yet – but its existing laws still apply indirectly (e.g. any token fund raising fiat from the public would likely trigger due diligence by banks or licensed trustees handling the funds).
-
[Panama & BVI] Treatment of DAOs and Emerging Structures: Both jurisdictions are adapting gradually to decentralized models like DAOs (Decentralized Autonomous Organizations). Panama does not currently recognize DAOs as legal persons, so typically a Panamanian corporation or foundation is used to “wrap” a DAO for legal activities. (Panama’s legislature has signaled interest in recognizing smart contracts and DAOs in future legislation, but none is enacted yet.) The BVI similarly has no bespoke DAO law – a DAO seeking legal capacity would form a BVI Business Company or Limited Partnership to contract and hold assets. In either jurisdiction, the legal entity behind a DAO must comply with the relevant laws: e.g. if a BVI company operates a DAO-controlled protocol that offers tokens or financial services, that company must obtain any necessary VASP registration or securities licenses. Neither Panama nor BVI provides limited liability to an unincorporated “pure code” DAO, so organizers typically incorporate to limit liability and fulfill compliance obligations. DAO token offerings are thus treated under the principles above (utility vs security token, public vs private offering) depending on the token’s features.
-
[Looking Ahead]: Panama’s framework remains in flux, with no binding crypto-specific regulations yet – token issuers rely on interpreting general laws and SMV guidance. In the BVI, a regime is in place and actively enforced for all crypto token activities, though evolution continues (e.g. new FSC rules or sandbox programs for DeFi are in effect). Both jurisdictions require careful structuring (often utilizing Panama for more flexibility vs. BVI for more regulatory certainty), and token issuers commonly use a Panama+BVI dual structure (e.g. a Panamanian operating entity with a BVI token-issuing vehicle) to balance business needs with compliance. The following sections provide the detailed legal analysis, with citations to the primary sources governing crypto tokens in Panama and the BVI.
-
Behind Licentium
Our Edge
Licentium is a specialized platform that connects crypto-asset issuers and service providers with an international network of lawyers, regulatory consultants, and former supervisors. Projects can map applicable rules in key jurisdictions through a single interface, obtain jurisdiction-specific launch advice, arrange the drafting of white papers and licensing applications, and schedule ongoing compliance health-checks. The platform’s curated expert pool spans financial services, data protection, and corporate law, enabling founders to address cross-border requirements—from MiCA in the EU to securities, AML, and consumer-protection regimes elsewhere—within coherent project timelines and budgets.
