The US is still arguing over crypto legislation, while Australia has already put the rules in writing. The bar: $9.7 million ⚖️🦖
📣 盘面异动群里喊
On Thursday, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) launched a public consultation on capital, custody and trading rules for crypto platforms. Consultation Paper CP 392 proposes that platforms without a qualified third-party custodian hold at least A$14 million (about US$9.7 million) in net tangible assets, or 10% of their average revenue over the past period—whichever is higher.
The consultation paper also includes three other measures: first, it sets out three possible capital models; second, it restricts platforms from using their own funds to trade on their own account; and third, it requires them to report quarterly on the wallets holding client assets. It also proposes allowing offshore custody, while raising a key question: if an overseas parent or affiliate goes under, should the Australian platform have emergency access to the private keys? 💰
For context, in April this year the Australian Parliament passed the digital asset framework provisions in an amendment to the Corporations Act. This consultation is the final round of feedback before the rules are implemented, with 2027 as the target date.
My take: these rules are expensive—and just expensive enough. Industry players themselves say the standards are reasonably strict, because they reward those who invested early in compliance and custody, while penalising those who kept waiting. US$9.7 million is pocket change for the biggest platforms, but a matter of survival for smaller ones. So the real effect isn’t protecting users—it’s reshuffling the industry. 📊
The global picture makes this clearer. The EU’s MiCA has been in effect for a while, while US legislation remains stuck in Congress. Australia has chosen a third path: lay out the guidance first, then enforce it in 2027. Not aiming to be the fastest, but to eliminate uncertainty first.
The two things to watch are offshore custody and emergency access to private keys. Once these rules are finalised, they’ll directly determine whether small platforms can keep operating in Australia—and whose hands users’ money is actually in.
What do you think of this gradual approach to implementation? Does it protect users, or is it mainly about protecting the big platforms? Let’s discuss in the comments.
Every day, I bring you the latest in crypto regulation and industry developments—not just what’s happening, but the logic and opportunities behind it 👀🚀
📣 盘面异动群里喊
On Thursday, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) launched a public consultation on capital, custody and trading rules for crypto platforms. Consultation Paper CP 392 proposes that platforms without a qualified third-party custodian hold at least A$14 million (about US$9.7 million) in net tangible assets, or 10% of their average revenue over the past period—whichever is higher.
The consultation paper also includes three other measures: first, it sets out three possible capital models; second, it restricts platforms from using their own funds to trade on their own account; and third, it requires them to report quarterly on the wallets holding client assets. It also proposes allowing offshore custody, while raising a key question: if an overseas parent or affiliate goes under, should the Australian platform have emergency access to the private keys? 💰
For context, in April this year the Australian Parliament passed the digital asset framework provisions in an amendment to the Corporations Act. This consultation is the final round of feedback before the rules are implemented, with 2027 as the target date.
My take: these rules are expensive—and just expensive enough. Industry players themselves say the standards are reasonably strict, because they reward those who invested early in compliance and custody, while penalising those who kept waiting. US$9.7 million is pocket change for the biggest platforms, but a matter of survival for smaller ones. So the real effect isn’t protecting users—it’s reshuffling the industry. 📊
The global picture makes this clearer. The EU’s MiCA has been in effect for a while, while US legislation remains stuck in Congress. Australia has chosen a third path: lay out the guidance first, then enforce it in 2027. Not aiming to be the fastest, but to eliminate uncertainty first.
The two things to watch are offshore custody and emergency access to private keys. Once these rules are finalised, they’ll directly determine whether small platforms can keep operating in Australia—and whose hands users’ money is actually in.
What do you think of this gradual approach to implementation? Does it protect users, or is it mainly about protecting the big platforms? Let’s discuss in the comments.
Every day, I bring you the latest in crypto regulation and industry developments—not just what’s happening, but the logic and opportunities behind it 👀🚀