ASIC Says Crypto Is Not a Separate Asset Class Under Law

ASIC Fintech Chief Says Crypto Is Not a Separate Asset Class – Australia Signals Technology-Neutral Regulatory Approach

Key Takeaways

• ASIC fintech head Rhys Bollen said crypto should be regulated based on economic substance, not technology.
• Tokenized securities should fall under securities law, while stablecoins may trigger payment services legislation.
• Australia’s proposed Digital Asset Framework bill amends existing financial laws rather than creating a separate crypto regime.
• ASIC guidance states digital assets are not a distinct asset class for regulatory purposes.
• Regulatory focus is placed on intermediaries such as platforms offering custody, trading, lending or yield services.

ASIC Advocates Technology-Neutral Regulation for Crypto

Australia’s corporate and financial services regulator is signaling that digital assets should not be treated as a separate category under the law. Speaking at the Melbourne Money & Finance Conference, Rhys Bollen, head of fintech at the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, said blockchain-based assets perform the same core financial functions as traditional instruments.

According to Bollen, regulation should focus on “economic substance rather than technological form.” He argued that distributed ledger technologies represent new infrastructure for longstanding activities such as capital allocation, payments and risk management. While issuance, transfer and record keeping mechanisms have changed, the underlying economic purpose remains comparable to traditional finance.

Bollen drew a parallel to earlier shifts in financial infrastructure, noting that regulators did not introduce entirely new legal systems when markets moved from paper-based records to electronic systems. Instead, existing principles such as consumer protection, market integrity and systemic stability were adapted to new technologies. He said a similar approach should apply to blockchain-based systems.

Application of Existing Laws to Tokenized Assets and Stablecoins

Under the approach outlined by Bollen, tokenized securities would fall within established securities legislation. Stablecoins, depending on their function, could trigger payment services laws. Other crypto-related products and services may be subject to consumer protection frameworks.

This model contrasts with crypto-specific regulatory regimes introduced in other jurisdictions, including the CLARITY Act in the United States and the Markets in Crypto-Assets framework in the European Union. Rather than creating a standalone crypto statute, Australia is integrating digital assets into its existing regulatory architecture.

Bollen said this method reduces opportunities for regulatory arbitrage. By focusing on economic characteristics instead of labels such as “token” or “digital asset,” regulators can apply consistent standards across financial products that serve similar functions.

For users of crypto trading platforms, payment services or tokenized investment products, this approach means that the legal classification will depend on how a product operates in practice. A digital asset that functions as a security, derivative, managed investment scheme interest or non-cash payment facility may fall within the existing perimeter of financial regulation.

Digital Asset Framework Bill Amends Corporations Act

Australia’s main legislative initiative in this area, the Digital Asset Framework bill, reflects this integration strategy. According to Bollen, the bill does not abandon the current financial services framework. Instead, it introduces targeted amendments to the Corporations Act to incorporate digital asset platforms into established law.

This signals that crypto businesses operating in Australia may be brought under licensing, conduct and disclosure obligations already applicable to traditional financial service providers, depending on the nature of their activities.

In addition, ASIC Information Sheet 225 provides guidance on how existing definitions of “financial product” and “financial service” under the Corporations Act apply to digital assets. The document explicitly rejects the idea that digital assets constitute a discrete asset class for regulatory purposes. Instead, it assesses whether a given product falls within established categories based on function.

For international operators assessing the Australian market, this means regulatory analysis will focus less on branding or technical structure and more on the economic role played by a token or platform.

Focus on Intermediaries and Consumer Harm

ASIC’s regulatory emphasis is directed primarily at intermediaries rather than the tokens themselves. Bollen noted that most consumer harm in the digital asset sector has stemmed from the conduct of crypto platforms offering custody, trading, lending or yield services.

By concentrating oversight on service providers, the regulator seeks to address risks arising from operational practices, governance and client asset handling. This is particularly relevant for centralized platforms that control user funds or facilitate complex financial products.

For market participants, including crypto payment providers and betting platforms that integrate digital assets, intermediary obligations may become a key compliance consideration if their activities fall within the scope of financial services regulation.

Decentralized Structures Present Classification Challenges

Bollen acknowledged that decentralized products and services can raise classification issues. In such cases, the regulatory assessment should focus on practical control and economic benefit rather than formal claims of decentralization.

He stated that where identifiable parties exercise influence over protocol design, governance or economic outcomes, regulatory obligations can and should attach. This indicates that labeling a system as decentralized will not automatically remove it from oversight if individuals or entities retain meaningful control.

For projects structured around decentralized governance or automated protocols, the analysis may therefore examine who makes key decisions, who benefits financially and how the system operates in practice.

Our Assessment

ASIC’s position outlines a technology-neutral regulatory model that integrates digital assets into existing financial law rather than creating a separate asset class. Tokenized securities, stablecoins and platform services are assessed based on their economic function. The proposed Digital Asset Framework bill and ASIC guidance reflect this approach by amending established legislation and focusing on intermediaries. For market participants, regulatory treatment in Australia will depend on how products and services operate, not on their technological label.