Crypto Is Just Finance on a Different Infrastructure, Says ASIC’s Fintech Chief
March 11 2026
Summary
At the Melbourne Money & Finance Conference, Rhys Bollen, head of fintech at Australia’s securities regulator (ASIC), argued that digital assets should be regulated according to their economic substance rather than their underlying technology. The stance marks a clear departure from the cryptocurrency‑specific statutes being drafted in the United States and Europe and signals a pragmatic, “fit‑for‑purpose” regulatory approach in Australia.
Background
Blockchain and other distributed‑ledger technologies have introduced new ways to issue, transfer, and record financial instruments. Yet, according to Bollen, the three core functions of any financial system—capital allocation, payments, and risk management—remain unchanged. The Australian regulator therefore proposes to treat tokenised securities, stablecoins, and other digital assets under the same legislative umbrella that governs traditional securities, payment services, and consumer protection.
How Australia’s approach differs
| Jurisdiction | Regulatory model | Key features |
|---|---|---|
| Australia (ASIC) | “Economic substance” overlay on existing laws | Amendments to the Corporations Act; ASIC Information Sheet 225 extends existing definitions of “financial product” and “financial service” to digital assets. |
| United States | Dedicated crypto statutes (e.g., CLARITY Act) | Separate legal framework for digital assets, with distinct licensing and reporting obligations. |
| European Union | Markets in Crypto‑Assets Regulation (MiCA) | Comprehensive, stand‑alone regulation covering a broad range of crypto activities, from token issuance to service providers. |
Key Points from Bollen’s Presentation
-
Digital assets are not a new asset class – they are modern incarnations of long‑standing financial instruments. While the mechanics of issuance and settlement have shifted from paper to code, the economic roles remain the same.
-
Regulatory objectives stay consistent – consumer protection, market integrity, and systemic stability continue to guide policy, irrespective of whether the instrument is a share certificate or a token on a blockchain.
-
Tailored amendments, not a new bill – Australia’s Digital Asset Framework bill amends selected parts of the Corporations Act rather than creating a separate “crypto law”. The amendment integrates digital‑asset platforms into the existing financial‑services architecture.
-
Guidance for intermediaries – ASIC Information Sheet 225 focuses on the entities that provide custody, trading, lending, or yield services. The sheet stresses that where an entity’s conduct results in consumer harm, traditional consumer‑protection rules apply.
- Decentralised protocols are not exempt – If identifiable parties exert control over a protocol’s governance, design, or economic outcomes, they could be treated as “financial service providers” and be subject to the same obligations as conventional intermediaries.
Analysis
1. Reducing Regulatory Arbitrage
By anchoring regulation to the function of an asset rather than its form, ASIC aims to close loopholes that allow firms to sidestep existing securities or payment‑services rules simply by issuing a token. This could discourage “regulatory arbitrage” – a problem that has plagued jurisdictions with fragmented or overly‑prescriptive crypto statutes.
2. Clarity for Market Participants
A function‑based framework offers clearer guidance for exchanges, custodians, and issuers. Companies can assess whether a token qualifies as a security, a derivative, a managed investment scheme, or a non‑cash payment facility under the Corporations Act. This reduces compliance uncertainty and may accelerate the rollout of compliant digital‑asset services in Australia.
3. Potential Friction with Global Standards
Australia’s approach diverges from the “stand‑alone” models championed in the US and EU. While this may simplify domestic compliance, international participants could face a patchwork of rules when operating across borders. Firms planning cross‑border offerings will need to map ASIC’s functional criteria onto the more prescriptive definitions in CLARITY or MiCA.
4. Impact on Decentralised Finance (DeFi)
Bollen’s acknowledgement that regulatory obligations attach where “identifiable parties exercise influence” signals a willingness to reach into DeFi protocols. Projects that rely on a core development team, token‑governance board, or other centralised control points could be deemed subject to the same rules as traditional financial intermediaries. This may encourage DeFi projects to adopt more transparent governance structures or to seek licensing where needed.
5. Stablecoins and Payments
ASIC’s stance that stablecoins fall under payment‑services legislation aligns with global trends that treat them as “e‑money” or “payment tokens”. By placing them within the existing payment‑services regime, regulators can leverage established AML/CTF frameworks, licensing requirements, and consumer‑protection rules, avoiding the need for a bespoke stablecoin regime.
Key Takeaways
- Economic Substance Over Technology: ASIC will regulate digital assets based on the financial function they perform, not the blockchain they run on.
- Existing Laws Adapted: Tokenised securities, stablecoins, and other digital assets will be covered by the Corporations Act and the Payment Services Act, with specific amendments introduced by the Digital Asset Framework bill.
- Guidance Targets Intermediaries: ASIC’s Information Sheet 225 focuses on platforms offering custody, trading, lending, and yield services, applying traditional consumer‑protection rules where appropriate.
- Decentralised Projects Not Immune: If a protocol’s governance can be linked to identifiable actors, those actors may face the same regulatory obligations as traditional financial service providers.
- Australia Avoids a “One‑Size‑Fits‑All” Crypto Bill: Rather than enacting a stand‑alone crypto statute, the regulator opts for targeted amendments, preserving the integrity of the broader financial‑services regime.
Outlook
Australia’s functional‑first regulatory philosophy could become a model for jurisdictions seeking to balance innovation with investor protection. As other markets calibrate their own approaches, the stark contrast between ASIC’s integration strategy and the US/EU’s dedicated crypto frameworks may prompt a broader discussion on the most effective way to supervise digital finance. For crypto firms, the message is clear: understand the economic role of your token, and align it with the existing regulatory perimeter.
The information in this article is based on statements made by ASIC’s fintech chief at the Melbourne Money & Finance Conference and public regulatory documents. Readers are encouraged to consult the original sources for detailed guidance.
Source: https://cointelegraph.com/news/crypto-shouldnt-treated-seperate-asset-class-asic-fintech-chief?utm_source=rss_feed&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=rss_partner_inbound
