On April 1, 2025, the Australian government approved the Corporations Amendment (Digital Assets Framework) Bill 2025, establishing stricter rules for the operation of crypto asset platforms. From then on, companies operating in the sector must obtain the Australian Financial Services License (AFSL) to operate legally.
The new rules require these platforms to adopt custody standards equivalent to banks and maintain adequate levels of solvency and capital. However, smaller companies that conduct less than A$5,000 in transactions per client and register up to A$10 million in annual transactions are exempt from the full license.
The deadline for adapting to the new rules is up to one year after the laws are enacted, with an additional period of up to 18 months for companies already in operation to comply. Furthermore, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has received expanded authority to supervise, set standards, and apply civil penalties in cases of non-compliance.
Platforms will be classified into two regulatory categories: Digital Asset Platforms (DAPs) and Tokenized Custody Platforms (TCPs). Both are recognized as financial products under the Corporations Act 2001 and must fulfill general obligations, such as segregating client assets and disclosing essential information.
Consumers will have support for conflict resolution through the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA), enhancing user protection. Thus, the legislation replaces the previous superficial registration and establishes a compulsory licensing system, especially focused on capitalization and investor security.
Before enactment, crypto exchanges only registered with AUSTRAC to combat money laundering and terrorism financing, while many operated without robust oversight. With this new law, the goal is to prevent situations like the collapse of FTX, requiring concrete risk management and capital measures.
These requirements increase compliance costs, which may accelerate the consolidation of smaller market players. To continue operating, companies must update their custody solutions and appoint responsible managers by mid-2027, meeting requirements that go beyond the previous scope.
International Context and Regulatory Comparisons
The Australian legislation regulating cryptocurrency platforms integrates these assets into the traditional financial system through the requirement of the Australian Financial Services Licence (AFSL). Thus, the country chooses to adapt an already established regime instead of creating a specific framework, unlike the European Union, which will implement the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA) in 2025, with its own licensing system for Crypto-Asset Service Providers (CASPs).
While the EU adopts a specific and unified regulation for crypto, Australia uses its traditional financial framework to make the rules for the digital asset sector more integrated and aligned with existing standards. On the other hand, the United States presents a fragmented model without a single federal license, relying on rules from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), in addition to state licenses and frequent lawsuits, creating a less uniform regulatory scenario.
Singapore, meanwhile, follows the Payment Services Act to regulate services related to digital tokens, adopting practices similar to Australia’s concerning anti-money laundering (AML) and risk management. However, prudential requirements for smaller operators are less stringent, bringing the Asian country’s approach closer to the proportionality seen in the Australian exemptions for micro-platforms.
In general, Australia positions itself alongside regimes such as the United Kingdom’s Financial Services and Markets Act (FSMA), avoiding total bans present in some Asian jurisdictions. Additionally, the new legislation strengthens platform transparency and certification, with stricter custody and minimum capital requirements, which are higher than in many smaller international markets.
The rules determined by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) strengthen governance and risk management for platforms operating in the crypto asset market, providing civil sanctions for non-compliance. This model aims to offer greater legal certainty, bringing more predictability for local operators, especially compared to the U.S. market.
Finally, it is worth highlighting that Australia does not provide a regulatory passport system for the free movement of crypto services, as happens in the European Union. These rules directly impact the Australian technological and financial sector, influencing operations and innovation. By treating cryptocurrency as a financial asset, the country may affect the local investment and distribution of tokens, reflecting standards aligned with international recommendations for the financial system.
