Australia’s Senate Economics Legislation Committee has endorsed a bill that would bring crypto exchanges and tokenisation platforms under the country’s existing financial services regime. The Corporations Amendment (Digital Assets Framework) Bill 2025, recommended for passage on March 16, marks a significant step toward a bespoke licensing regime for “digital asset platforms” (DAPs) and “tokenised custody platforms” (TCPs). The move aims to close oversight gaps that emerged in the wake of high‑profile collapses in the digital asset space, including the FTX debacle, and to align digital asset activities with established financial regulation.

Key takeaways

• The committee backed the Corporations Amendment (Digital Assets Framework) Bill 2025, signaling government momentum toward formal licensing for DAPs and TCPs.
• The bill would treat DAPs and TCPs as financial products under the Corporations Act and ASIC Act, pushing many exchanges and custody providers into the Australian Financial Services Licence regime.
• Austere exemptions exist for smaller players, with annual transaction thresholds under A$10 million and certain public blockchain infrastructure carved out from licensing requirements.
• Industry groups cautioned that broad terms like “digital token” and “factual control” could sweep in wallet software and multi‑party computation architectures, potentially widening the regulatory perimeter beyond intent.
• Industry reactions included support from Coinbase Australia but concerns about debanking risks, underscoring the need for clear rules to foster a competitive, innovation‑friendly environment.

Tickers mentioned:

Market context: The move sits within ongoing global regulatory shifts as jurisdictions seek to harmonise digital asset activities with traditional finance rules while balancing innovation with consumer protection.

Why it matters

The proposal to classify DAPs and TCPs as financial products signals a measurable tightening of Australia’s crypto regulatory framework. By requiring compliance with custody, settlement, and disclosure standards set forth by ASIC, the framework seeks to bolster confidence among retail and institutional users that assets held on regulated platforms are safeguarded under robust governance. The designated framework also aims to harmonise standards across platforms that hold customer assets, reducing the risk of fund misappropriation and escalating enforcement actions that followed gaps exposed during major industry disruptions.

From a market perspective, the committee’s recommendation could have two meaningful effects. First, it may accelerate the onboarding of compliant platforms into Australia’s financial services regime, potentially expanding the country’s appeal as a regional hub for digital asset activity. Second, the proposal’s carve‑outs for smaller providers and certain infrastructure projects may preserve a space for innovation and niche services, though the thresholds introduce a calculus for compliance costs that could influence the business models of smaller operators.

The testimony and documents also illustrate the tension between regulatory ambition and technical realities. Industry voices warn that the current wording—particularly terms like “digital token” and “factual control”—could inadvertently encompass wallet software and distributed architectures used by modern custodians. Ripple Labs, for example, argued that while a clear regulatory perimeter is appropriate, modern security architectures such as multi‑party computation wallets should be accommodated. The concern is not only about classification but about ensuring that technology providers aren’t swept into a regime designed for centralized custodians merely because they operate within a multi‑party framework. This debate underscores the challenge regulators face in drawing boundaries that reflect both traditional finance risk controls and evolving cryptographic architectures.

The committee’s stance acknowledged these concerns and endorsed Treasury’s approach to refine the regulatory perimeter through targeted future regulations rather than reopening the core definitions. In practical terms, this means Australia is pursuing a calibrated path: extend licensing to platforms with customer assets while allowing smaller or foundational infrastructure players to operate under exemptions that recognise their different risk profiles.

In parallel, major industry stakeholders have weighed in on the path forward. Coinbase Australia’s leadership welcomed the recommendation as a meaningful step for Australia’s role in the global digital economy, while cautioning that issues such as debanking continue to pose risks in the absence of clear, consistent fintech‑bank collaboration. The emphasis remains on establishing a predictable, rules‑based environment that enables innovation without compromising consumer protection or market integrity.

What to watch next

• The bill moves to the Senate for debate and a final vote, with potential amendments to definitions and exemptions.
• Regulatory guidance or secondary legislation from the Australian Treasury and regulators that clarifies what constitutes “unilateral transfer” rights and how MPC wallets are treated.
• Details on the application and administration of the A$10 million exemption threshold for small providers, including practical examples and reporting requirements.
• Prospective licensing timelines for DAPs and TCPs, including anticipated capital and conduct standards that platforms must meet to obtain an Australian Financial Services Licence.

Sources & verification

• Parliament of Australia, Senate Economics Legislation Committee report on the Corporations Amendment (Digital Assets Framework) Bill 2025 (Tabled Documents 15556).
• Australia introduces bill regulate crypto under existing finance laws — Cointelegraph coverage of the framework’s scope and implications.
• Ripple Labs commentary on regulatory perimeters and security architectures in the context of Australian licensing discussions — Cointelegraph article.
• Coinbase Australia perspective on licensing progress and debanking risks, as reported by Cointelegraph.
• Discussion of the broader regulatory environment following high‑profile digital asset incidents, including references to the FTX collapse.

Australia’s digital asset licensing push gains momentum

The March recommendation by the Senate committee consolidates a long‑running discussion about aligning digital asset activities with Australia’s financial services regime. By treating DAPs and TCPs as financial products, the government signals intent to apply established consumer protections, custody standards, and governance requirements to platforms that hold customer funds. The bill’s architecture suggests a bifurcated pathway: a robust licensing regime for the larger, asset‑holding platforms, and a more measured approach for smaller operators and certain infrastructure services. This approach mirrors global regulatory patterns that balance risk management with the need to avoid stifling innovation.

Proponents argue that a clear, rules‑based framework will attract both retail and professional participants, helping to safeguard assets while enabling legitimate use cases—from regulated token custody to transparent settlement mechanics. Critics, however, warn that overly broad terminology could sweep in a wider ecosystem than intended, potentially elevating compliance costs for startups and deterring competitive dynamics in the Australian market. The Treasury’s preference for incremental refinement rather than wholesale redefinition indicates a deliberate, consultative path forward, one that seeks to harmonise domestic rules with international standards while preserving Australia’s appeal as a digital asset jurisdiction.

Looking ahead, the government and regulators will need to articulate concrete guidance on custody standards, disclosure obligations for retail clients, and governance requirements tailored to platform types. As the regulatory perimeter takes shape, market participants will monitor whether the exemptions for small providers create a workable environment for early‑stage platforms and whether the evolving framework can accommodate future security innovations without diluting risk controls. In the meantime, the industry will likely press for timely regulatory clarity to reduce uncertainty and facilitate strategic investments in Australia’s digital asset ecosystem.