Regulating crypto by activity, not by asset

Lawmakers face a basic question when they write rules for crypto: should the law look at the thing or at the job being done with it? One answer sorts the assets. A token is placed in a box, such as a security, a commodity, a collectible or a stablecoin, and the rules of that box apply. Another answer ignores the label and lists activities. If a firm runs a trading platform, holds assets for customers or issues a certain kind of stablecoin, it needs permission, whichever tokens are involved. The two approaches can sit side by side, and the choice shapes who must apply for authorization, what a customer can expect, and how clear the boundaries are.

An activity-based regime works through a list written into law. According to one financial regulator's press release, new regulations bring a range of cryptoasset activities inside its remit, and the regulator published guidance for firms in September 2026. The covered activities include issuing qualifying stablecoins, operating trading platforms, dealing in cryptoassets and arranging deals, safeguarding assets for others, and arranging staking. A firm that does any of these must apply for authorization and then follow conduct and reporting rules. The regulator described a sequence: applications opened in September 2026, and the regime takes effect in October 2027. Until the start date, firms and customers work under the narrower rules already in force, so the list describes the future position, not the present one.

Take a made-up example. Priya uses an app that lets her swap one token for another and also keeps the tokens in an account run by the app's company. Under an asset-based approach, her question would be what legal category each token belongs to, and the answer could differ from token to token. Under an activity-based regime, the question shifts to what the app does. Running a trading venue and safeguarding customer assets are both on the list, so the company would need authorization for each, whichever tokens Priya picks. For Priya, the practical change is that she can look for the company on a public register and ask which of its activities are covered.

Neither approach is tidy. Asset-based sorting struggles when a token moves between categories as its use changes, or when lawyers disagree about where it falls. Law-firm summaries of one such framework describe groups like digital commodities, collectibles, tools, stablecoins and securities, and each group draws its own rules. Activity-based lists can miss a new service that does not match any line on the list, and the same app may perform several covered activities at once. Both approaches also leave gaps at the edge: decentralized software with no operator, or a firm based abroad that serves local customers. A regulated activity also does not mean a regulated product. Permission to operate says nothing about whether the service is a good fit for any reader.

Several questions help a reader follow a move from guidance to formal rules. Which activities does the law name, and which are left out? Is the date quoted from an official source, and does it say when applications open and when the rules start? What applies today, before the new regime begins? Where does the regulator keep its public register, and does the firm you are reading about appear on it for the right activity? Does the firm describe what it does in plain language, such as holding assets for customers or matching buyers with sellers? Reading the regulator's own publications, not a summary on a social media post, is the dependable way to answer these.

The position described here reflects public statements at one point in time, and regimes keep changing, so dates and lists should always be checked against the regulator's current pages. Before a regime takes effect, the position centers on promotion rules and financial crime rules rather than a full authorization system, according to the same regulator's consumer pages. Law-firm summaries are useful for orientation but they are not official sources. This page is general education about how two legal approaches differ. It does not say which approach is better, does not describe how any particular firm is treated, and is not legal or financial advice. Rules for the same activity can differ from one jurisdiction to the next.

• An activity-based regime asks what a firm does, not which token it handles
• Covered activities can include trading venues, safekeeping, dealing, stablecoin issuing and staking
• Check dates and lists on the regulator's own pages, since regimes are phased in over time