asic

Komisi Sekuritas dan Investasi Australia (ASIC) pada 29 Oktober 2025 memperbarui pedoman mengenai aset digital, secara resmi mengklasifikasikan stablecoin sebagai produk keuangan. Aturan baru ini juga mencakup token yang dibungkus, sekuritas yang ditokenisasi, dan dompet digital — penyedia mereka diwajibkan untuk mendapatkan lisensi AFSL.

Introduction

The digital asset landscape is changing quickly. New technologies, tokenized assets, decentralized finance (DeFi) models, stablecoins, and cross-border platforms are challenging traditional regulatory frameworks. In Australia, ASIC has indicated a significant change. Instead of viewing “crypto” as loosely regulated, it is now expanding its regulatory scope to include a wide range of digital assets under the existing financial services law. The previous inconsistent guidance is shifting toward a more structured approach. This post explores how ASIC’s updated guidance, particularly Info Sheet 225, and draft legislative reforms are incorporating digital asset businesses, the reasons behind these changes, the key features of this regulatory shift, and the implications for market participants, consumers, and the Australian digital asset industry.
Why the Regulatory Shift?

Several factors have led ASIC and the Australian government to take action:

Innovation and growth of digital assets: Tokenized assets, yield-bearing tokens, staking arrangements, stablecoins, and other digital asset offerings have expanded rapidly, raising concerns about investor protection, market integrity, custody risks, and systemic issues.

Regulatory gaps and consumer risks: Many digital asset activities fell outside or were only partially covered by the traditional definitions of “financial products” or “financial services” in the Corporations Act 2001. This situation left consumers unprotected and platforms less regulated. ASIC states that “Consumers are only protected by the financial services laws that ASIC manages to the extent that any digital assets and related services are subject to those laws.”

Global regulatory momentum: Countries around the world, including the EU, Singapore, the UK, and Hong Kong, are moving toward clearer frameworks for digital assets. Australia wants to keep pace and establish itself as a credible, regulated jurisdiction for digital asset activities.

Enforcement and oversight precedents: ASIC has already taken significant enforcement actions in the crypto-asset space, such as against derivative platforms and unlicensed offerings. A clearer regulatory framework supports better oversight and consumer protection.

These factors together make the regulatory shift understandable and arguably necessary. ASIC’s approach shows that digital asset business models cannot assume “crypto is unregulated.” They must determine whether their tokens or services fall under financial services law and act accordingly.
Key Features of ASIC’s Expanded Regulatory Regime

Here are the key features of the updated regime that market participants should understand.

Broader Definition: From “Crypto-assets” to “Digital Assets”

ASIC’s guidance replaces the term “crypto assets” with the broader term “digital assets.” This change aims to include not just traditional cryptocurrencies (coins) but also tokenized assets, yield tokens, staking services, wrapped tokens, stablecoins, and other digital items representing rights or value. This broadening means many more products and services may now be regulated.

Clarification of When Digital Assets Are Financial Products

ASIC’s Info Sheet 225 explains when a digital asset (or a service related to a digital asset) may be considered a “financial product” under the Corporations Act. Key points include:

- If a digital asset issues rights similar to shares, debentures, or interests in managed investment schemes, it may be classified as a financial product.
- Even if the token itself is not a financial product, the service (such as dealing, custody, issuing, or arranging) may be a “financial service” that requires licensing.
- The guidance provides 18 worked examples (up from 13 in previous drafts) covering various tokens, including exchange-issued, wrapping, staking-as-a-service, yield-bearing tokens, NFTs, and stablecoins.

Custody, Platform & Offshore Reach

ASIC emphasizes new custodial standards. Platforms holding client digital assets must meet certain net tangible asset thresholds (up to AUD 10 million) unless custody is incidental. The guidance also states that Australian laws apply to offshore or decentralized structures that market or offer services to Australians, even if the firm is based overseas or the infrastructure is decentralized.

Licensing and Conduct Obligations

When a digital asset service is a financial product or a financial service, the provider may need an Australian Financial Services License (AFSL) or act as an authorized representative and comply with regulatory guides (like RG 1, RG 146, RG 133). The draft legislation also suggests specific obligations for digital asset platforms and custody providers.

Disclosure and Risk Management

Issuers or service providers of digital asset-based products must provide clear disclosures about risks, including volatility, valuation, custody, cyber, regulatory, and environmental risks. Advisers must understand the technology, and custodians need to implement sound risk management practices.

Legislative Reform Path

Although these are guidance documents and not new laws, the Australian government has introduced a draft bill (Treasury Laws Amendment (Regulating Digital Asset and Tokenised Custody Platforms) Bill 2025) to bring digital asset platforms into the regulatory framework outlined in the Corporations Act. The draft Bill defines new categories like digital asset platforms (DAP) and tokenized custody platforms (TCP), establishing standards for licensing, conduct, disclosure, asset-holding, and transactions.
Implications for the Industry, Consumers & the Market

The regulatory shift affects various stakeholders in significant ways.

For Service Providers & Issuers

Firms issuing digital tokens must carefully assess whether their token or service qualifies as a financial product. If it does, they may need an AFSL, must provide adequate disclosures, meet conduct obligations, and ensure custody standards.

Platforms offering trading, staking, yield-bearing tokens, wallet services, or exchange services need to evaluate licensing obligations and implement technology, risk, governance, and compliance frameworks.

Offshore or decentralized platforms that enable Australians to participate cannot rely solely on their offshore jurisdiction to avoid compliance; they may still be subject to Australian law.

The shift may increase compliance costs (licensing fees, audits, governance, risk functions), potentially marginalizing smaller players or those unable to scale compliance. However, it may also enhance institutional confidence and access.

For issuers of stablecoins or tokenized custody platforms, the proposed legislation includes tailored rules, such as definitions for DAP and TCP, necessitating strategic planning.

For Consumers / Retail Investors

The expansion may provide greater protection for consumers. There are clearer obligations for platforms, better risk disclosures, clearer custody arrangements, and improved oversight.

However, increased regulation may create higher barriers and costs, potentially leading to fewer offerings and slower innovation. There may be fewer low-cost or loosely regulated token schemes.

Retail investors should understand that just because a token is digital does not mean it is unregulated. They should assess whether the provider is licensed, check custody arrangements, review risk disclosures, and verify the provider's regulatory status.

Offshore platforms might still serve Australian users, but the law states they are not exempt from Australian oversight, so users should verify compliance and registration status.

For the Australian Market and Economy

Australia's actions help position the country as a jurisdiction with reliable regulation for digital asset infrastructure, which could attract institutional capital, fintech innovations, tokenized asset issuances, and custody services.

Clearer regulations may encourage broader acceptance of tokenized assets, digital money infrastructure, stablecoins, and institutional digital asset activities.

However, if compliance burdens become too heavy for smaller firms, it may lead to consolidation or exits by smaller companies, reducing innovation or increasing market concentration risks.

From a systemic-risk perspective, including digital assets in the regulatory framework helps reduce the risks associated with unregulated growth, custody failures, market integrity issues, cross-border arbitrage, and consumer harm.

For Global and Cross-border Considerations

Australia’s approach aligns with international trends like the EU’s MiCA, Singapore’s Payment Services Act, and the UK’s strategy for digital settlement and asset tokenization. By aligning with these standards, Australia can be competitive in the global tokenized asset markets.

The extraterritorial reach—applying to offshore platforms that serve Australian clients—means global firms need to consider licensing or compliance presence in Australia to operate there.

The definitions and regulatory standards may impact how global firms design their products, including custody models and the classification of tokens as financial products, to avoid exclusion or regulatory risks in different jurisdictions.
Challenges, Risks & Things to Watch

While the regulatory shift is significant and generally positive for oversight, challenges and risks remain.

Ambiguity and evolving interpretation: Many digital asset products have unique features that make categorization complex. Whether a token qualifies as a financial product depends on its rights and structure. Firms must accurately interpret the law; ASIC’s examples help but may not cover all scenarios.

Cost of compliance: Licensing, auditing, custody infrastructure, governance, and disclosure all come with cost burdens. Smaller firms may struggle or decide to exit the market.

Innovation vs regulation: If regulations become overly restrictive, innovation may slow or move offshore, countering Australia's goal to be a hub. Some analysts suggest that while the rules won't cause a mass exit, they will require more compliance efforts.

Global enforcement and jurisdictional gaps: Although Australian law applies to offshore businesses serving Australians, enforcement can still be challenging, especially with decentralized protocols and anonymous token issuance.

Market adoption and unintended consequences: If certain digital asset services become significantly more costly or complex, retail adoption may slow, or market participants might look for ways to bypass regulations, leading to less transparency or greater risks.

Regulatory capacity: As more firms seek licenses and compliance obligations increase, ASIC and related bodies must be prepared to scale. If they don't manage timely approvals and oversight, bottlenecks or delays could impact market growth.

Balance of consumer protection and access: Finding the right balance is essential. Protecting consumers is crucial, but regulations must also allow for innovation and competition. If rules are too strict, consumers may lose access to valuable services; if too lax, risks may persist.
Future Outlook

Here are some developments to watch as the landscape evolves.

Finalization of legislation: The draft Bill (Treasury Laws Amendment for Digital Asset & Tokenised Custody Platforms) will go through Parliament, likely with amendments that will establish the legal licensing framework.

Implementation and licensing wave: Once the legislation is effective, firms will pursue AFSL or variations, modify their business models, and adopt custody standards and risk management practices. A rise in licensing applications is expected.

Changes to platform, custody, and token architecture: Token issuers and platforms may need to redesign their models to comply, such as creating tokenized custody platforms and wallet providers that separate assets, ensuring strong segregation and audits.

Increase in institutional adoption: With clearer regulations, institutional investors may feel more secure entering the digital asset space in Australia, leading to increased liquidity, professionalization, and market sophistication.

Innovation in tokenized assets and services: Despite regulations, new use cases for tokenized real-world assets, infrastructure tokens, digital settlements, and stablecoins will continue to emerge. The regulated environment may even attract new business models.

Harmonization across jurisdictions: Australia may work with other countries to adopt or align standards, which could impact or be influenced by global digital asset regulations. This would help global businesses operate with more certainty.

Consumer education and market maturity: As the market matures and regulatory requirements solidify, consumers will receive more information, risk disclosures, and protections, leading to greater transparency and professionalism in the industry.

Monitoring for unintended consequences: Regulators should be vigilant for potential unintended outcomes, such as regulatory arbitrage, the relocation of platforms, the marginalization of smaller players, over-concentration of service providers, or new types of risks emerging from decentralized finance protocols.
Conclusion

ASIC’s extension of financial services laws to include digital assets represents a significant milestone in the growth of Australia’s digital asset ecosystem. What was once a loosely regulated frontier is becoming integrated into the mainstream financial services framework, focusing on consumer protection, market integrity, and regulatory oversight. For businesses, this is a time for transition and adjustment: reassessing token models, platforms, custody arrangements, disclosures, and licensing. For investors and consumers, it promises stronger protections and clearer rules, though this may lead to higher costs or limited access to certain services. For the Australian market and economy, this move positions the country as a credible, regulated jurisdiction for digital asset innovation and activities, provided the regulations remain balanced, adaptable, and innovation-friendly.

In summary, this shift highlights an important reality: in digital finance, regulation is no longer optional or peripheral; it is fundamental. The line between “crypto” and “finance” is fading. Firms involved in digital assets can no longer see themselves as outside the financial services regime; they are likely inside it. ASIC’s guidance and the upcoming legislative framework communicate to the market that compliance, governance, custody, and consumer focus are now essential. The road ahead may have challenges, but the outcome is a more mature, robust, and credible digital asset system in Australia.#asic $BTC

Australia menghadapi gelombang penipuan terkait kripto mulai dari dukungan selebriti deepfake hingga penipuan ATM kripto dan bahkan penyamaran dari pengawas keuangan negara itu sendiri. Penipuan ini semakin canggih, dan Komisi Sekuritas dan Investasi Australia (ASIC) meningkatkan responsnya.
1) Penipu Menjadi Canggih
Di seluruh negeri, penipu menargetkan investor dengan skema yang meyakinkan. Di Australia Barat saja, penipu yang memanfaatkan dukungan selebriti palsu, termasuk video deepfake, telah menipu korban lebih dari $10 juta sejauh ini tahun ini, bagian dari hampir $20 juta yang dicuri sejak 2024.

Pada tahun 2025, ketika solusi Layer 2, blockchain modular, dan mekanisme konsensus PoS (bukti kepemilikan) menjadi fokus industri, melihat kembali sebuah proyek kuno yang lahir dari "gelombang fork" pada tahun 2017—Bitcoin Gold ($BTG)—sepertinya agak tidak tepat waktu. Namun, filosofi kelahiran BTG, yaitu **"melawan ASIC"**, memberikan perspektif yang unik dan patut dipikirkan di dunia yang semakin terkonsentrasi pada kekuatan komputasi ini.
$BTG bukan hanya sekadar "koin tiruan" dari Bitcoin, ini adalah sebuah eksperimen sosial mengenai jalur pencapaian "desentralisasi". Di luar efisiensi PoS dan keamanan mutlak BTC (ASIC-PoW), $BTG berusaha untuk mempertahankan area terakhir yang bersih untuk "penambangan GPU".

Dalam langkah organisasi yang signifikan, Otoritas Sekuritas dan Investasi Australia (ASIC) mengumumkan pemberian pengecualian khusus yang pertama sejenisnya, yang memungkinkan broker lokal untuk mendistribusikan stablecoin yang telah disetujui tanpa harus mendapatkan lisensi keuangan terpisah. Inisiatif ini dipandang sebagai terobosan dalam pengembangan pasar aset digital di Australia.