Crypto Regulation in Australia After the 30 September 2026 ASIC Deadline

Key Takeaways

• ASIC's no-action position for digital asset businesses ended on 30 September 2026: a business that took a qualifying step by that date may keep operating while ASIC assesses it and one that did not has had no cover since 1 October.
• For a company the civil penalty for unlicensed conduct under s 1317G(4) of the Corporations Act is the greatest of 50,000 penalty units, three times the benefit or the lesser of 10 per cent of turnover and 2.5 million penalty units and unlicensed conduct is also an offence under s 911A.
• The Digital Assets Framework Act commences on 9 April 2027 with a six-month transition for existing operators and ASIC's 18-month roadmap is a work plan rather than an application window.
• An Australian introducer, affiliate or OTC desk that feeds customers to an offshore platform may itself be arranging under s 766C(2) and need its own authorisation, whatever the platform did or did not lodge.

1. 1.What ended on 30 September 2026 and what applies from 1 October
2. 2.What the Digital Assets Framework Act creates
3. 3.Australian introducers, affiliates and referrers of offshore platforms
4. 4.What AUSTRAC now regulates
5. 5.What the courts have held
6. 6.How stablecoins would be regulated
7. 7.When a platform needs both DAP authorisation and MIS registration
8. 8.How crypto is taxed and what changes from 1 July 2027
9. 9.Why licensing does not solve debanking
10. 10.What Project Acacia found
11. 11.How Australia's approach compares
12. 12.Where general guidance stops
13. 13.Frequently Asked Questions

Australia's digital asset rules moved from transition to enforcement on 1 October 2026. The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) let its sector-wide no-action position lapse on 30 September 2026 and its September "final call" warned that a business which needed an Australian financial services licence (AFSL) and had not lodged by then risks breaching financial services law. The Corporations Amendment (Digital Assets Framework) Act 2026 (Cth) (the DAF Act) commences on 9 April 2027. The Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (AUSTRAC) has regulated the full range of virtual asset services since 31 March 2026. On 17 June 2026 the High Court reversed the Full Federal Court in Block Earner and held that a fixed-yield crypto product is a financial product. A stored-value facility framework for stablecoins remains proposed law. This article works through each of those developments and adds a section for the Australian introducers who send customers to offshore platforms.

ASIC's guidance states its view of the law; the cases show where the courts have agreed with it and where they have not and that distinction matters more now that the forbearance period has closed.

For how the regimes fit together, see our hub, Digital Assets Law in Australia: The Regulatory Map. This article is its detailed companion, kept current since May 2026 by Astris Law, a Brisbane commercial and regulatory practice. For what an application involves, see our answers on crypto licensing cost and timeline.

What ended on 30 September 2026 and what applies from 1 October

The no-action position began with a class no-action letter issued on 29 October 2025 alongside the rewritten Information Sheet 225 (INFO 225): ASIC would not act against a digital asset business providing financial services without the right authorisation if it took a qualifying step by a set date, first 30 June 2026. On 25 June 2026 ASIC updated the letter, moved the date to 30 September 2026 and widened the position to businesses operating under or moving into authorised representative and intermediary authorisation arrangements with the holder of an AFSL. It was forbearance rather than a statutory safe harbour and it has lapsed.

The qualifying steps were:

• lodging an AFSL application or an application to vary an existing licence, with ASIC;
• being appointed as an authorised representative of the holder of an AFSL under s 916A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the Corporations Act);
• entering an intermediary authorisation under s 911A(2)(b) with the holder of an AFSL and notifying ASIC;
• completing the related body corporate arrangements the letter specified; or
• for a business needing an Australian market licence or a clearing and settlement facility licence, notifying ASIC in writing of the intention to apply and holding a pre-application meeting.

In early September 2026 ASIC published a final call: "From 1 October, firms that need a licence or variation to their existing authorisation but have not met the conditions of ASIC's no-action position risk breaching financial services law and could face civil and criminal penalties, including potential fines reaching up to 10% of annual turnover." It reported more than 45 licence applications since INFO 225 was updated in October 2025 and said many existing authorisations will still be required after the DAF Act commences.

The position from 1 October 2026 therefore divides in two. A business that took a qualifying step by 30 September may continue operating under the no-action position while ASIC assesses its application. One that did not has no regulatory cover for any digital asset activity that is a financial service and ASIC's September statement said such a business risks breaching financial services law and could face civil and criminal penalties. When this article was last reviewed we had not located an ASIC media release dated October 2026 announcing enforcement against a particular operator, but proceedings in this sector have been filed well after the conduct: the Qoin matter below concerned almost three years of unlicensed operation.

The penalties

Carrying on a financial services business in Australia without an AFSL contravenes s 911A of the Corporations Act. The 10 per cent figure in ASIC's statement is one limb of a three-limb formula. Under s 1317G(4) the maximum pecuniary penalty for a body corporate is the greatest of three amounts: 50,000 penalty units; three times the benefit derived and detriment avoided; or the lesser of 10 per cent of annual turnover for the 12 months ending at the end of the month of the contravention and 2.5 million penalty units. For an individual, under s 1317G(3), it is the greater of 5,000 penalty units or three times the benefit.

The penalty unit is set under s 4AA of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) and indexed, so 50,000 penalty units is about $18.2 million at the unit value ASIC publishes for conduct from 1 July 2026. Unlicensed conduct is also an offence under s 911A and ASIC's published figures put the exposure for an individual at up to five years' imprisonment. The Federal Court has already ordered $8 million in Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Bit Trade Pty Ltd [2024] FCA 1422 (Bit Trade) and $14 million in Australian Securities and Investments Commission v BPS Financial Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 18 (Qoin), of which $2 million was for unlicensed conduct.

If the date was missed

A business that needed authorisation and did not lodge has four paths, which are not mutually exclusive: stop providing the relevant service to Australian clients until authorised; lodge now, accepting that late lodgement does not revive the no-action position, although a lodged application is a very different starting point from none if ASIC makes contact; come under an existing licensee as an authorised representative or through an intermediary authorisation, the route the June 2026 letter expressly contemplated; or restructure the product so that it is not a financial product, a path Block Earner has narrowed considerably. Which fits depends on what the business does with client assets and how it has been marketing. We wrote about the equivalent choice after the first deadline in our note on missing the 30 June lodgement date.

What happens next

1. In the first week, establish whether a qualifying step was taken by 30 September 2026 and keep the evidence of lodgement, appointment or notification.
2. Within a fortnight, map each product against s 763B, s 761D and s 763D on its terms of use rather than its marketing.
3. Then choose between stopping, lodging, coming under a licensee and restructuring, remembering that an AFSL application commonly takes many months to determine.
4. In parallel, confirm the AUSTRAC registration position for every designated service, because the two regimes run independently.
5. Before April 2027, plan the application for the platform authorisations the DAF Act creates against ASIC's roadmap.

What the Digital Assets Framework Act creates

The Corporations Amendment (Digital Assets Framework) Act 2026 (Cth) (Act No. 38 of 2026) passed Parliament on 1 April 2026, received Royal Assent on 8 April 2026 and amends Chapter 7 of the Corporations Act to create two new categories of regulated activity.

A digital asset platform (DAP) is a facility where an operator holds digital tokens, for itself or for another person, "holding" meaning factual control: the ability to transfer the token, exclude others from it and demonstrate control over it. It captures centralised exchanges, custodial wallet providers and any intermediary that takes possession of client private keys.

A tokenised custody platform (TCP) is a facility where an operator holds assets other than money and issues a single digital token for each, giving the holder the right to redeem or direct delivery of the underlying asset. It captures tokenised securities and real estate products; our guide to tokenising real world assets in Australia works through the concept.

Platforms as financial products

The Act inserts DAPs and TCPs into the list of financial products in s 764A(1) of the Corporations Act, so the platform facility itself is the financial product, the approach already used for a managed investment scheme (MIS); under s 764A(1)(lb) a TCP that is also an MIS falls under the MIS regime. The tokens themselves are not reclassified: the platform is the financial product and operating it is a financial service requiring an AFSL. Each token still has to be assessed under the existing definitions on the rights it confers and after Block Earner that framework reaches further than many operators had assumed.

What the Act does not regulate

The Act does not regulate the issue of tokens as such. An issuer does not need a licence under this Act merely because it issues a token; it needs one if the token is caught by an existing financial product definition. A token that confers nothing beyond property rights in itself, with no counterparty obligation, is unlikely to be caught by either the new Act or the existing framework, but only for as long as the rights stay that narrow.

Nor does the Act regulate businesses using digital assets for non-financial purposes, individual holders or traders and genuinely decentralised protocols with no identifiable operator. "Genuinely decentralised" is a factual determination, not a label that confers immunity: if an identifiable group controls protocol upgrades, holds admin keys, takes fees or directs treasury, ASIC and AUSTRAC may treat it as an operator.

How it fits within Chapter 7

The Act does not create a standalone licensing regime. It grafts platforms onto the AFSL framework in Chapter 7, so every existing Chapter 7 obligation applies: the general obligation to act efficiently, honestly and fairly under s 912A; the design and distribution obligations (DDO) under Part 7.8A, including the target market determination (TMD) regime; the product intervention power under Part 7.9A; and the market misconduct provisions of Part 7.10. Operators must also publish platform rules, a platform guide and a platform voting policy, give clients the same information about underlying assets as a direct acquisition would require and meet the minimum standards for asset holding, transaction processing and settlement that ASIC will set by subordinate instrument.

Commencement, the transition and ASIC's roadmap

The Act commences on 9 April 2027, twelve months after Royal Assent. A six-month transition then runs to about October 2027, during which the DAP and TCP amendments do not apply to an existing operator that has applied for, but not yet received, the relevant authorisation. Outside that transition, operating either type of platform without the relevant AFSL authorisation will be unlicensed conduct under s 911A.

The "18 months" in much of the commentary is something different. On 20 April 2026 ASIC published an implementation roadmap running from April 2026 to October 2027: roundtables and an industry advisory group on guidance and operational standards in months one to six; a new regulatory guide for DAPs and TCPs in months six to twelve; and the opening of DAP and TCP licence applications, with transitional relief while they are assessed, in months twelve to eighteen. It is the regulator's work plan rather than a window in which to apply and it did not extend the 30 September 2026 date, which concerned authorisations under the existing law.

AFSL applications commonly take many months to determine, so an operator that wants a DAP or TCP authorisation from day one should already be restructuring custody, identifying responsible managers, establishing compliant dispute resolution and arranging professional indemnity insurance.

Australian introducers, affiliates and referrers of offshore platforms

A great deal of Australian crypto activity happens on offshore exchanges reached through an Australian intermediary: an affiliate site earning a share of trading fees from referred accounts, a comparison page with tracked links, an over-the-counter (OTC) desk that routes clients to an offshore venue, a community whose members join a platform under its referral code or a fintech app that embeds an offshore exchange behind its own brand. The 30 September deadline is usually discussed as the platform's problem, but it is the introducer's too, for two separate reasons.

The platform's position does not improve by being offshore

Section 911A requires a person who carries on a financial services business in this jurisdiction to hold an AFSL and s 911D deems a business to be carried on here if the person engages in conduct intended or likely to induce people in Australia to use its financial services. ASIC's guidance on that test is Regulatory Guide 121 (RG 121), reissued in September 2024. INFO 225, which cross-refers to it and received minor edits in April 2026, says that offshore or decentralised structures do not mean that key obligations under Australian law do not apply or can be ignored.

The no-action position was never confined to Australian-incorporated operators. An offshore platform whose Australian-facing marketing amounts to inducement under s 911D and whose products are financial products, needed to take a qualifying step by 30 September 2026 like everyone else and one that did not is in the same position from 1 October as an unlicensed local operator. Its choices are the four set out above, with geo-blocking as the usual form that stopping takes.

The introducer may be providing a financial service in its own right

Under s 766C(2) of the Corporations Act a person deals in a financial product if they arrange for another person to acquire, dispose of or apply for one. Dealing is a financial service and "arranging" is not defined. ASIC's Regulatory Guide 36 (RG 36) treats it as conduct that plays a real part in bringing the transaction about and distinguishes it from a mere referral. Marketing a platform's products to Australians, onboarding customers to it, taking a commission referenced to their trading or sitting between the customer and the platform in the order flow are all capable of being arranging. An introducer arranging a financial product therefore needs its own authorisation or needs to be a representative of someone who holds one, which is also INFO 225's stated position.

There is a narrow exemption in reg 7.6.01(1)(e) and (ea) of the Corporations Regulations 2001 (Cth) for a bare referral: informing a person that a licensee or its representative can provide a financial service, giving contact details and disclosing any benefit the referrer receives. It is framed around a referral to an Australian licensee or its representative, so it offers nothing to a business referring Australians to a platform with no Australian authorisation or to a referrer that does more than pass on contact details.

The routes are the ones the June 2026 letter named: its own AFSL with dealing authorisations, appointment as an authorised representative under s 916A or an intermediary authorisation under s 911A(2)(b). Each was within the widened no-action position and the deadline applied to introducers taking those steps just as it applied to platforms. An introducer whose offshore platform never applied and which itself took no step, has nothing to point to from 1 October.

Three questions decide where a particular introducer sits: whether the tokens or products being promoted are financial products at all, which after Block Earner means a closer look at any yield, earn or staking feature; whether the introducer's conduct is arranging or something less; and whether the platform's Australian-facing marketing, including marketing the introducer runs on its behalf, is conduct intended or likely to induce Australians within s 911D. Each answer turns on the actual agreement, the commission mechanics and the marketing.

What AUSTRAC now regulates

The Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Amendment Act 2024 (Cth), which received Royal Assent on 10 December 2024, expanded the designated services in Table 1 of s 6 of the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 (Cth) (the AML/CTF Act) to capture digital asset activities that had been outside AUSTRAC's perimeter. Obligations for all of the new virtual asset designated services commenced on 31 March 2026 and the travel rule for virtual asset transfers, which Australia applies with no de minimis threshold, commenced on 1 July 2026.

On 31 March 2026 existing digital currency exchange providers registered with AUSTRAC were automatically re-registered as virtual asset service providers, with reformed AML/CTF program and customer due diligence obligations for Item 50A services, the exchange of virtual assets for money and vice versa. For who must register at all, see Who Must Register with AUSTRAC?

Obligations for the services that had no registration requirement before the reform also commenced on 31 March 2026: exchange of virtual assets for virtual assets under Item 50B; custodial safekeeping of virtual assets under Item 46A; accepting instructions to transfer virtual assets for customers or making transferred virtual assets available to them, under Items 29 and 30; and financial services in connection with the offer or sale of a virtual asset where the business participates in it, under Item 50C. A provider that applied for registration by 29 July 2026 could continue until AUSTRAC decided the application. That date has passed and a provider of a newly designated service that has not applied is now providing a designated service without registration, a second problem independent of its ASIC exposure, because an AFSL does not satisfy AUSTRAC requirements and vice versa. We covered the register's first deregistrations in 45 Providers Struck Off One Register.

Scope uncertainties

The legislation does not name Layer 2 bridging or the front-ends of decentralised finance (DeFi) protocols. AUSTRAC's published guidance carves out persons who solely provide software applications, such as self-hosted wallet developers and do not safekeep or administer virtual assets, but the statutory language is functional: the "make arrangements for" exchange language in Items 50A and 50B and the transfer instructions language in Items 29 and 30 can capture a bridge operator or a DeFi front-end that routes, executes or aggregates orders, while an interface that only presents blockchain data is more likely outside.

Penalty exposure

Under s 175 of the AML/CTF Act a court may impose on a body corporate a civil penalty of up to 100,000 penalty units for each contravention. Commonwealth Bank paid $700 million in 2018 and Westpac $1.3 billion in 2020 for systemic AML/CTF failures, which shows the scale AUSTRAC seeks for systemic non-compliance.

What the courts have held

Four contested matters have run their course or close to it: ASIC won two at first instance, lost one at trial and on appeal and lost the fourth in the Full Court before winning it unanimously in the High Court. For how far the "we are not a financial product" position can still be run, see our analysis of why that era is ending.

Bit Trade (Kraken): the design and distribution case

In Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Bit Trade Pty Ltd [2024] FCA 953, Nicholas J found that Kraken's margin extension product was a credit facility when denominated in national currency. Bit Trade had not made a TMD under s 994B of the Corporations Act before distributing it and each distribution without one was a separate contravention. Over 1,100 Australian customers paid over US$7 million in fees and interest and lost more than US$5 million trading, one investor nearly US$4 million. The $8 million penalty followed on 12 December 2024, Nicholas J noting that Bit Trade "did not turn its mind to the requirement of the DDO regime until these were first drawn to its attention by ASIC".

One distinction still matters for every leveraged product: margin extensions repayable in national currency were a deferred debt and so a credit facility, while those repayable solely in digital assets involved no obligation to repay money and were not, because crypto is property, not money.

Block Earner: lost in the Full Court, won in the High Court

Under Block Earner's Earner product a customer paid Australian dollars, nominated an eligible cryptocurrency and an amount to be invested and received a fixed rate of return paid in that cryptocurrency. ASIC alleged it was a managed investment scheme under s 9 of the Corporations Act, alternatively a facility for making a financial investment under s 763B, alternatively a derivative under s 761D. The primary judge found a contravention but relieved Block Earner from penalty. In Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Web3 Ventures Pty Ltd [2025] FCAFC 58 (Block Earner) the Full Federal Court (O'Callaghan, Abraham and Button JJ) allowed Block Earner's cross-appeal and set aside every finding of contravention, reasoning that a customer lending cryptocurrency for a fixed return had no right to participate in the benefits of Block Earner's deployment of the funds, so none of the three definitions was met.

On 17 June 2026, in Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Web3 Ventures Pty Ltd [2026] HCA 21, the High Court unanimously allowed ASIC's appeal: Earner was a financial product within Division 3 of Part 7.1 on two independent bases, a facility through which a person makes a financial investment under s 763B and a derivative under s 761D, because what the customer received varied with the value of the nominated digital asset and the exchange rate. The proceeding was remitted to the Full Court to determine ASIC's appeal against the relief from penalty. ASIC marked the result with 26-124MR and the decision has since been read as confirming that the existing financial product definitions are technology neutral.

Fixed-yield products where the customer hands over money or assets and receives a predetermined return referenced to a digital asset are inside the existing perimeter and earn, yield and staking-as-a-service products built on the Full Court's reasoning needed authorisation under the existing law before the DAP framework arrives.

Finder Wallet: the debenture question

In Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Finder Wallet Pty Ltd [2024] FCA 228 (Finder) and on appeal in Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Wallet Ventures Pty Ltd [2025] FCAFC 93, ASIC alleged that Finder's Earn product was a debenture within s 9 of the Corporations Act. Customers converted Australian dollars into TrueAUD, a stablecoin pegged to the Australian dollar, which they allocated to Finder for a fixed term at 4.01 per cent per annum. ASIC lost before Markovic J and again before the Full Court (Stewart, Cheeseman and Meagher JJ), which dismissed the appeal on 24 July 2025: TrueAUD is property rather than money, so customers did not lend or deposit money with Finder as the statutory definition of debenture requires. We have not located any application for special leave in Finder and the Full Court's decision stands as the law on the debenture point.

Read with Block Earner, Finder is a narrower result than it first appeared. It decides that a crypto-denominated arrangement is not a debenture because it is not a loan of money; it does not decide that such an arrangement is not a financial product at all and the High Court's approach to s 763B and s 761D is now the first question any fixed-return product has to answer.

BPS Financial (Qoin): payment tokens as financial products

In Australian Securities and Investments Commission v BPS Financial Pty Ltd [2024] FCA 457 (liability) and [2026] FCA 18 (penalty, 27 January 2026), Downes J found that the Qoin Wallet was a non-cash payment facility under s 763D(1) of the Corporations Act, because the Qoin token was designed and marketed as a medium of exchange between wallet holders and registered merchants. The penalty was $14 million: $2 million for unlicensed conduct under s 911A over nearly three years and $12 million for misleading and deceptive representations. The wallet was issued over 96,000 times and BPS was restrained for 10 years from carrying on a financial services business without an AFSL.

A token designed and marketed as a payment mechanism between users and merchants is likely to be a non-cash payment facility and its issuer will ordinarily need an AFSL unless one of the exemptions for low-value or limited facilities applies.

How stablecoins would be regulated

The reforms that would regulate stablecoins as tokenised stored-value facilities are in exposure drafts of the Treasury Laws Amendment Bill 2026: Payments System Modernisation and the Payment Entities (Prudential Regulation) Bill 2026, released by Treasury on 12 March 2026. Consultation closed on 9 April 2026 and Treasury indicated it would introduce the package later in 2026. When this article was last reviewed we had not located an introduced Bill.

Under the drafts a stored-value facility (SVF) is a facility where a user transfers funds without immediate payment instructions and retains a right to redeem them and a tokenised SVF is one where each right to redeem is exercisable only by the person who possesses the digital token attached to it and the redeemable amount is fixed in a single currency. All SVF providers, including stablecoin issuers, would need an AFSL and would be subject to ASIC conduct obligations including disclosure and design and distribution requirements. Where total stored value exceeded $200 million across the provider and its related bodies corporate, prudential supervision by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) would apply as well; below that figure the issuer would remain ASIC-regulated only. The role of the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) under Part 4 of the Payment Systems (Regulation) Act 1998 (Cth) would be substantially reduced and issuers would have to hold high-quality liquid assets equal to at least 100 per cent of outstanding liabilities in segregated accounts.

Under current law INFO 225 treats many stablecoins as financial products and the no-action position covered affected issuers only if they lodged an AFSL application by 30 September 2026. ASIC has granted class relief for intermediaries distributing stablecoins issued by holders of an AFSL under the ASIC Corporations (Stablecoin Distribution Exemption) Instrument 2025/631, which commenced on 20 September 2025 and covers only the stablecoins named in it. Our guide to stablecoin issuance in Australia sets out the path and our payments licensing page covers the stored-value side.

When a platform needs both DAP authorisation and MIS registration

A platform's activities can span several regulatory categories at once. One that provides custodial exchange services (a DAP function) and also pools customer assets for staking with discretion over deployment (potentially an MIS under s 601ED of the Corporations Act) may need both, because the two regimes do not subsume each other. Managed staking, where the operator pools assets and chooses the strategy, is likely an MIS requiring responsible entity registration and a compliant offer under Part 7.9; intermediated staking, where the platform provides the infrastructure for users to stake their own assets but holds the keys, is a DAP function. After Block Earner, a staking or yield product that pays a return referenced to a digital asset also has to be tested against s 763B and s 761D.

The DAP obligations attach to the entity with factual control over the tokens, often the one holding the private keys rather than the one managing the strategy. Separating custody from a pooled strategy after launch is slower and more disruptive than building it that way.

How crypto is taxed and what changes from 1 July 2027

The Australian Taxation Office (ATO) treats digital assets as property. Disposal of a crypto asset, including exchange for another crypto asset, is a capital gains tax (CGT) event. For an individual or a trust the 50 per cent CGT discount applies to assets held for more than 12 months; a company gets no discount and a complying superannuation fund one third. The personal use asset exemption is narrow: original cost under $10,000 and acquisition for personal consumption rather than investment. Staking rewards, DeFi yields and most airdrops are ordinary income when received, as is mining income where the activity is a business; the ATO carves out initial-allocation airdrops and hobby-scale mining.

From 1 July 2027 the 50 per cent discount for individuals, trusts and partnerships is replaced by cost base indexation with a minimum tax on net capital gains, while gains accruing before that date keep the existing treatment. The change was announced in the 2026-27 Budget and is now law under the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No 1) Act 2026 (Cth), with some transitional detail still in exposure draft. Take the detail from a registered tax agent.

Why licensing does not solve debanking

Debanking remains the most significant practical barrier for digital asset businesses in Australia. The Senate Select Committee on Australia as a Technology and Financial Centre heard in 2021 from one exchange operator who had been debanked 91 times and its final report of 20 October 2021 recommended a clearer process for debanked businesses anchored in the Australian Financial Complaints Authority.

The DAF Act is partly intended to help, on the theory that a licensed operator can show banking partners it operates within a regulated framework and meets its AML/CTF obligations, but banks are not obliged to serve any particular customer and their risk appetite decisions are commercial rather than regulatory. There is no anti-debanking legislation in force; Treasury has engaged with the major banks on publishing their requirements and risk tolerance for digital asset customers, without a statutory remedy so far. Operators should plan their banking as carefully as their regulatory compliance rather than assuming an AFSL will open doors at the major banks.

What Project Acacia found

The RBA and the Digital Finance Cooperative Research Centre pursued wholesale tokenised money research through Project Acacia, which conditionally selected 24 use cases in 2025 and released its findings in May 2026 after 20 use cases were tested across fixed income, private markets, trade receivables and carbon credits, settling with exchange settlement account balances, a pilot wholesale central bank digital currency (CBDC), tokenised bank deposits and stablecoins. The project was confined to wholesale applications and the RBA has said it sees no strong case for a retail CBDC.

How Australia's approach compares

Australia integrates digital asset regulation into the existing AFSL framework rather than creating a standalone regime: a heavier load from day one than the registration regime the United Kingdom's Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has run for anti-money laundering purposes and a different architecture from the European Union's Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA) or the Major Payment Institution (MPI) licence classes under Singapore's Payment Services Act. Australia has no mutual recognition arrangement for digital asset licences. ASIC's relief for foreign financial services providers is confined to wholesale clients and to providers regulated by overseas regulators ASIC has recognised and in its current transitional form it runs to 31 March 2027, so a MiCA licence, a Singapore MPI licence or a UK FCA registration is no substitute for an Australian application where retail clients are served.

Where general guidance stops

A well-capitalised operator with existing compliance infrastructure can absorb dual AUSTRAC and ASIC licensing; a smaller operator or new entrant must choose between building that infrastructure and leaving the Australian market and since 1 October 2026 that choice can no longer be deferred by pointing to a forbearance letter. Block Earner brings fixed-yield products inside the perimeter under the existing law and from 9 April 2027 the DAP framework is designed to capture most platforms that hold tokens for users whatever their products are called. The introducer layer has had the least attention and now carries a live exposure.

Where a particular business sits turns on a short list of variables: whether each token or product it touches is a financial product on its terms, especially after Block Earner; whether it holds client assets, arranges for others to acquire them or merely informs; where its customers are and what its marketing says to them; whether it took a qualifying step by 30 September and, if not, what it has done since; and whether its AUSTRAC position matches its ASIC position. An article can draw the map; it cannot read your platform agreement, your commission schedule or your marketing against it. That reading is where the general guidance ends. Before acting on any of it, take advice on your own documents.

If any of this describes your business, whether it lodged in September, missed the date or sits between Australian customers and a platform that never applied, call Jamie Nuich on (07) 3519 5616 and talk it through. Our crypto and blockchain industry page describes the work in more detail.

Frequently Asked Questions

This article is for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied on as such. While we take reasonable care to ensure the accuracy of the information provided, we make no representations or warranties as to its completeness, currency or reliability. We accept no liability for any loss or damage arising directly or indirectly from the use of or reliance on, this website's content. You should always seek professional advice tailored to your specific circumstances before acting on any information in this article. Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.

Astris Law is not a registered tax agent and does not provide tax advice. References to tax law in this article describe the legal framework only. For tax advice specific to your circumstances, consult your registered tax agent or accountant.