Regulation Watch — Crypto Compliance and Market Structure

Crypto regulation moves in cycles. Long quiet periods, sharp brackets of enforcement, and then quieter periods again. The publication tracks both phases on the assumption that regulators only need to make the cost of operating outside the rules high enough to matter.

Coverage at this desk is sober. It is not legal advice and it does not endorse any specific regulatory posture. Where enforcement patterns are clear, we describe them. Where they are uncertain, we say so.

Market structure

Most rule-making sits downstream of two questions: who is accountable for customer funds, and who is accountable for accurate disclosures. The rest is procedural.

For a deeper look at how those questions translate into rule-making, see our Crypto Market Structure page.

Custody and segregation

Custody and segregation of customer assets keep returning as the central regulatory question. The Indonesia Vice Minister visit to a Singapore custodian, the MAS RFMC status award, and a long line of similar developments all point in the same direction: regulators want to know who holds keys and how they are segregated.

Operators reading this should assume the enforcement perimeter is wider than the published guidance.

Tax and disclosure

Tax authorities have steadily caught up with crypto activity. The Blox survey from 2019 was an early indicator of how thin disclosure was at the time. South African Revenue Service activity since then suggests the gap is closing in multiple jurisdictions.

Practical takeaways for readers: assume cross-border disclosure obligations apply and consult qualified advisors before relying on novel structures.

Cross-border coordination

International crypto regulation is mostly a coordination problem. The slowdown is procedural, not philosophical. Where two regulators move at different speeds, the lower bar becomes the binding constraint.

Coverage at this desk pays attention to which jurisdictions are tightening first.