Not publishable as-is. 1 of 5 publication_gate checks fail. The renderer displays the gate rather than suppressing it. Legal review and sub-brief approval are informational and are not part of this test.
Alaska, USA
US-AKschema crypto-v2.0.0trajectory: not yet assessedin transitionoverlaps: FIM, WPM
Last updated · 8 categories · 9 sourced
findings · 20 sources in the cumulative register
8Categoriesbaseline.
9Findings.claims[]
6Tier-1 sourcesrun_metadata.t1_source_count
Confidence mix(sums to 8 rendered categories; click to filter)
No categories moved this cycle.
Jurisdiction lead brief
Lead Signal
Alaska closed a licensing gap for virtual-currency business activity this cycle. The Alaska Division of Banking and Securities now requires a money-transmission licence before a person may engage in virtual currency business activity in the state, under SB 86 (Ch. 48 SLA 26), which is enacted but not yet fully effective. A companion requirement under SB 249 (Ch. 50 SLA 26) obliges virtual-currency kiosk operators specifically to hold a money-transmission licence and secure prior state approval before siting a kiosk, effective 1 October 2026. Alaska's crypto-regulatory posture has therefore moved from a licensing gap to a licensed-but-not-yet-fully-effective regime within this single cycle.
Other Developments
A consumer-protection framework accompanies the licensing shift. SB 249 requires mandatory fraud warnings and bilingual disclosures at kiosk locations and creates a refund pathway for Alaska residents defrauded via virtual-currency kiosk transfers, both effective 1 October 2026. This is the more consumer-facing and immediately legible component of this cycle's development: it establishes a remediation mechanism where none previously existed for kiosk-fraud victims.
Cross-Monitor Connections
The same Alaska enactment is material to this fleet's financial-integrity monitoring, which reads SB 86 and SB 249 as closing an AML-adjacent licensing gap and adding a kiosk-specific BSA/AML-consistent-policy and SAR-style reporting mandate; and to this fleet's payments monitoring, which reads the same statutes as a licensing, market-access and correspondent-supervision development. This crypto-focused reading is distinguished by its emphasis on the licensing-status and consumer-remediation dimensions of the enactment rather than its AML-architecture or payments-market-access dimensions.
Outlook
The defining date ahead is 1 October 2026, when SB 249's kiosk licensing, transaction controls and consumer-protection provisions take effect. Whether the Alaska Division of Banking and Securities has published implementing regulations or licence-application forms ahead of that date is unresolved this cycle; this cycle's findings rest on secondary trade and legal-press coverage rather than direct review of the enacted statutory text of SB 86 or SB 249.
8 of 8 categories
Signal
Density
Selections OR within a group, AND across groups. Press / to search.
Alaska has no bespoke crypto-asset licensing statute. Per the seed disambiguation, virtual-currency exchange, custody, and money-transmission businesses fall under Alaska's general money-transmitter licensing law, administered by the state's banking/financial-institutions authority (Division of Banking and Securities) through the multistate NMLS platform, rather than a dedicated crypto licence. The specific statutory citation and the existence of any crypto-specific carve-outs remain unverified against a primary legal text.
Standing sub-brief170 words · last cycle 2026-09-14
Crypto Licensing
A person must obtain a money transmission licence before engaging in virtual currency business activity in Alaska. This requirement, enacted under SB 86 (Ch. 48 SLA 26), is enacted but not yet fully effective. A parallel and more time-bound requirement applies to virtual currency kiosk (crypto ATM) operators under SB 249 (Ch. 50 SLA 26): kiosk operators must hold a money transmission licence and obtain prior state approval before siting a kiosk, effective 1 October 2026. Alaska has no statute addressing staking, DeFi lending, mining, node operation, validator activity or tokenization; the licensing expansion this cycle is confined to the money-transmission/kiosk perimeter. The primary framework is the Alaska Uniform Money Services Act (AS 06.55) as amended by SB 86 and SB 249, supervised by the Alaska Division of Banking and Securities.
Outlook
The short runway to the 1 October 2026 effective date for kiosk-specific licensing is the principal item to track. Whether implementing regulations or licence-application forms have been published ahead of that date is unresolved this cycle.
Periodic update · new data 2026-09-14
Crypto Licensing
Alaska has no bespoke crypto-licensing statute; virtual-currency businesses operating in or from the state are instead brought within the general Alaska Uniform Money Services Act (AS 06.55) as money transmitters, a treatment confirmed as in force since the January 2023 modernisation under SB 84. Licence applications proceed through the Nationwide Multistate Licensing System, the same channel used for conventional money-transmitter applicants, and the Division of Banking and Securities imposes a materially higher capital bar on virtual-currency applicants: a five-hundred-thousand-dollar electronic surety bond under AS 06.55.104(f), against a base twenty-five-thousand-dollar bond for standard money transmitters. The Division's own stated rationale for the differential is cryptocurrency price volatility, framing the elevated bond explicitly as a consumer-protection measure rather than a general prudential buffer.
The regime's active character was confirmed this cycle when the Division placed Coinme Inc.'s money-transmitter licence renewal, filed under licence number AKMT-014762, on hold in December 2025. The stated basis was Coinme's failure to maintain permissible investments sufficient to match its outstanding payment-instrument and stored-value obligations, a solvency-based deficiency rather than a conduct or disclosure failing. Coinme was offered a choice between surrendering the licence with an orderly wind-down or requesting an administrative hearing, with the underlying licence set to expire December 31, 2025 absent resolution. This is, on the evidence available this cycle, a functioning regulatory regime demonstrating genuine supervisory teeth rather than a dormant licensing formality: the elevated bonding requirement and the willingness to withhold renewal over a permissible-investment shortfall both point toward active, substantive supervision of virtual-currency money-transmission activity within the state.
What remains unresolved is the ultimate disposition of the Coinme matter itself, whether the company proceeded to surrender-and-wind-down or to an administrative hearing, and this is a live gap in the evidence base this cycle. A second open question is whether the Division applies the same five-hundred-thousand-dollar bonding tier to crypto-ATM operators as it does to exchange and custody businesses, or instead applies a lower tier reflecting a different risk assessment; no evidence resolving this distinction was located this cycle. Both gaps bear directly on how the licensing regime will be applied to the next wave of virtual-currency applicants in the state.
Outlook
The most consequential near-term development to track is the resolution of Coinme's licence status: a surrender-with-wind-down would materially shrink the roster of licensed crypto-cash-exchange operators serving Alaska, while a successful administrative hearing would confirm the licensee's ability to remedy a permissible-investment deficiency under supervisory pressure. Either outcome will inform how the next cohort of virtual-currency MTL applicants, and the Division itself, calibrate expectations around the elevated bonding and permissible-investment requirements going forward.
1 further periodic run re-emitted the standing brief unchanged and is not shown.
Sources and findings (1)
T1 · Conference of State Bank Supervisors / State Regulatory Registry LLCConference of State Bank Supervisors / State Regulatory Registry LLC — Crypto-asset exchange, custody, and money-transmission businesses operating in Alaska are required to hold a money-transmitter license administered under the state's general money-transmission licensing law, using the multistate NMLS licensing infrastructure, rather than a bespoke crypto-specific licence.retrieved M4bindingin force
Alaska does not operate an independent token-classification regime. Per the seed disambiguation, characterization of crypto assets as securities or commodities is governed entirely by federal law, most recently via the March 2026 SEC/CFTC joint interpretive taxonomy defining digital securities, digital commodities, digital collectibles, digital tools, and stablecoins.
Absence reason not determinableNo sub-brief exists and the JID records no gap or review marker explaining why. The renderer will not invent a reason.
no periodic updates on record for this sub-brief
Sources and findings (1)
T1 · U.S. Securities and Exchange CommissionU.S. Securities and Exchange Commission — Token classification for crypto assets held or transacted by Alaska residents and entities is determined at the federal level; the SEC and CFTC jointly issued an interpretive release, effective March 23, 2026, establishing categories including digital securities, digital commodities, digital collectibles, digital tools, and stablecoins, applicable nationwide including Alaska in the absence of any state-level classification rule.retrieved M4bindingin force
No Alaska-specific rules govern staking, mining, DeFi, node operation, or validator activity. In the absence of state legislation, the operative framework for Alaska-based participants is the federal SEC/CFTC interpretive position on how such activities interact with securities law.
Absence reason not determinableNo sub-brief exists and the JID records no gap or review marker explaining why. The renderer will not invent a reason.
no periodic updates on record for this sub-brief
Sources and findings (1)
T4 · CoinDeskCoinDesk — Federal guidance issued jointly by the SEC and CFTC in March 2026 excludes protocol staking and protocol mining from the 'digital securities' scope of the federal securities laws, a position that governs Alaska-based validators and miners in the absence of any state-specific on-chain activity rule.retrieved M3bindingin force
Stablecoin issuance, reserve, redemption, and disclosure requirements applicable to Alaska are governed by the federal GENIUS Act (signed into law July 18, 2025), not by any bespoke Alaska stablecoin statute. State money-transmitter licensing continues to apply to stablecoin-related money transmission pending full GENIUS Act implementation; federal regulators missed the one-year (July 18, 2026) statutory rulemaking deadline, leaving several implementing details unsettled.
Standing sub-brief317 words · last cycle 2026-09-14
Stablecoin Regime
Alaska has no state-specific stablecoin framework; the applicable regime this cycle is exclusively federal, arising from implementing rulemaking under the GENIUS Act. In March 2026 the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency issued a notice of proposed rulemaking setting out issuance requirements for national-bank-subsidiary and federally qualified nonbank payment-stablecoin issuers, and in April 2026 the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation issued its own GENIUS Act notice of proposed rulemaking establishing reserve, disclosure, and safety-and-soundness standards for FDIC-supervised permitted payment-stablecoin issuers, alongside provisions addressing tokenized deposits. Both proposals remain at the consultation stage; neither has been confirmed as finalised this cycle, and the finalisation of implementing regulations is expected around the first quarter of 2027, at which point permitted payment-stablecoin issuers would become subject to settled prudential and AML/sanctions rules under the GENIUS Act.
No Alaska-specific overlay to this federal framework was identified. The state's Division of Banking and Securities has not been shown this cycle to have issued any stablecoin-specific guidance, restriction, or licensing pathway distinct from its general virtual-currency money-transmitter treatment; stablecoin issuance and circulation within or into Alaska would, on current evidence, fall under the same AS 06.55 money-transmitter framework applied to virtual-currency businesses generally, pending any future state-specific stablecoin provision. This is consistent with the broader pattern in this jurisdiction, where crypto-specific regulatory detail is federally driven and the state layer operates through its pre-existing general money-services statute rather than bespoke digital-asset legislation.
Outlook
The rulemaking to watch is the finalisation of the OCC's and FDIC's respective GENIUS Act implementing regulations, expected around mid-2027, which would convert both proposals into binding prudential and disclosure standards for permitted payment-stablecoin issuers nationally, including any issuer operating in or through Alaska. Whether Alaska's Division of Banking and Securities responds to that finalisation with any state-specific overlay, or continues to route stablecoin activity through the existing general money-transmitter framework, is an open question for future cycles.
no periodic updates on record for this sub-brief
Sources and findings (3)
T4 · The BlockThe Block — Under the federal GENIUS Act, signed into law July 18, 2025, only permitted entities — federally chartered banks, OCC-supervised nonbank issuers, and certified state-qualified issuers — may issue payment stablecoins to U.S. customers, a framework that will apply uniformly to Alaska absent a state regime certified as substantially similar to the federal one.retrieved M4bindingenacted not yet effective
T4 · The BlockThe Block — The GENIUS Act requires payment stablecoin issuers to maintain liquid reserve backing and publish periodic reserve disclosures; implementing rulemaking by the OCC, Federal Reserve, FDIC, and NCUA remained incomplete after federal regulators missed the one-year (July 18, 2026) statutory deadline for final rules.retrieved M4bindingenacted not yet effective
T4 · The BlockThe Block — The GENIUS Act obligates payment stablecoin issuers to back every stablecoin with liquid assets, publish reserve disclosures, and honor customer redemptions as a condition of federal authorization, applicable nationwide including Alaska absent a certified state-level regime.retrieved M4bindingenacted not yet effective
Alaska's Division of Banking and Securities has issued public investor-protection warnings specific to cryptocurrency risk, though no crypto-specific binding consumer-protection statute exists; general Alaska securities antifraud provisions and NASAA-aligned guidance apply by default.
Standing sub-brief110 words · last cycle 2026-09-14
Consumer Protection
SB 249 (Ch. 50 SLA 26) requires mandatory fraud warnings and bilingual disclosures at Alaska virtual-currency kiosk locations, effective 1 October 2026. The same statute creates a refund pathway for Alaska residents defrauded via virtual-currency kiosk transfers. Both provisions mark a shift from an unregulated kiosk consumer landscape to one with defined disclosure and remediation obligations, and both are enacted but not yet in force.
Outlook
Implementation of the fraud-warning, disclosure and refund-pathway requirements will be tested against real kiosk-fraud cases once the 1 October 2026 effective date passes; whether the refund pathway proves practically accessible to defrauded residents is not yet resolved by this cycle's evidence base.
Periodic update · new data 2026-09-14
Consumer Protection
Alaska's consumer-protection approach to virtual-currency money-services activity is solvency-based rather than disclosure-based. The Division of Banking and Securities requires virtual-currency licensees to maintain permissible investments with a market value not less than the aggregate of their outstanding payment-instrument and stored-value obligations, a requirement enforced directly through the licence-renewal review process rather than through periodic disclosure filings or consumer-facing risk warnings. This mechanism sits alongside, and is reinforced by, the elevated five-hundred-thousand-dollar electronic surety bond imposed on virtual-currency applicants under AS 06.55.104(f), which the Division has explicitly justified on consumer-protection grounds given the price volatility characteristic of cryptocurrency assets.
The practical operation of this consumer-protection architecture was demonstrated this cycle by the Division's action against Coinme Inc., whose licence renewal was placed on hold in December 2025 specifically for failing to satisfy the permissible-investment requirement. This is a direct illustration of the regime functioning as intended: rather than a disclosure obligation that a consumer must interpret, the state's mechanism is a solvency test applied by the regulator itself at the point of licence renewal, with the consequence of a licensing hold, and potential surrender or wind-down, falling on the licensee rather than requiring the consumer to detect and act on a risk disclosure.
This is a materially different model to disclosure-centric consumer-protection regimes seen elsewhere, and it places the burden of ensuring adequate backing of stored-value and payment-instrument obligations on the regulator's periodic review rather than on the consumer's own diligence. No additional Alaska-specific consumer-protection mechanism, such as a mandated consumer-facing risk warning or a state-specific reserve-attestation requirement, was identified this cycle beyond the permissible-investment and bonding framework already described.
Outlook
The Coinme matter is the operative test case for this consumer-protection architecture, and its resolution, whether by surrender-with-wind-down or administrative hearing, will demonstrate in practice how the Division balances licensee remediation against consumer exposure when a permissible-investment shortfall is identified. Any future extension of solvency-based consumer protection to other categories of virtual-currency business, such as stablecoin issuers operating under the emerging federal GENIUS Act framework, is not yet evidenced in this jurisdiction.
1 further periodic run re-emitted the standing brief unchanged and is not shown.
Sources and findings (1)
T4 · CoinDeskCoinDesk — In January 2018 the director of Alaska's Division of Banking and Securities publicly cautioned residents that cryptocurrencies are not a typical investment and warned of fraud and volatility risk, as part of a broader state-regulator effort to increase consumer awareness of crypto risk.retrieved M2non-binding
No Alaska-specific crypto tax statute exists. Alaska levies no state individual income tax, so crypto-related income and capital-gains taxation exposure for individuals is governed exclusively at the federal level under IRS Notice 2014-21, which treats virtual currency as property for U.S. federal tax purposes. State-level exposure, if any, would be limited to Alaska's corporate income tax on business entities, which has not been independently verified for crypto-specific treatment in this pass.
Absence reason not determinableNo sub-brief exists and the JID records no gap or review marker explaining why. The renderer will not invent a reason.
no periodic updates on record for this sub-brief
Sources and findings (1)
T1 · U.S. Commodity Futures Trading CommissionU.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission — Federal guidance (IRS Notice 2014-21) treats virtual currency as property for U.S. federal tax purposes, meaning general property-transaction tax principles — including capital gains treatment for capital assets — apply to crypto-asset dispositions by Alaska taxpayers, with no separate state income-tax layer since Alaska imposes no individual income tax.retrieved M3bindingin force
Alaska has no state-specific outbound-restriction or cross-border reporting regime for crypto assets. Cross-border transfer controls applicable to Alaska-based crypto businesses operate at the federal level through FinCEN's Bank Secrecy Act money-transmitter framework and OFAC sanctions screening, which apply uniformly regardless of state boundaries.
Absence reason not determinableNo sub-brief exists and the JID records no gap or review marker explaining why. The renderer will not invent a reason.
no periodic updates on record for this sub-brief
Sources and findings (1)
T1 · Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN)Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) — Alaska imposes no independent state-level outbound restriction on crypto-asset cross-border transfers; exchangers and administrators of convertible virtual currency operating in or from Alaska are instead subject to the federal money-transmitter/MSB definition under FinCEN's regulations, which governs cross-border money-transmission activity nationwide.retrieved M3bindingin force
Crypto AML/CFT obligations applicable to Alaska are covered under the fleet's Financial Integrity (FIM) aml_ctf subscription rather than being independently researched in this crypto baseline, per the module subscription reminder. Disambiguation context only: the federal FinCEN/BSA money-services-business framework applies to Alaska-based exchangers and administrators of convertible virtual currency regardless of state boundaries; no separate Alaska AML statute for crypto has been identified.
Absence reason not determinableNo sub-brief exists and the JID records no gap or review marker explaining why. The renderer will not invent a reason.
no periodic updates on record for this sub-brief
No categories match.
Filters combine as OR inside a group and AND across
groups.
Publication gate
Blocking. 1 failing check(s).
schema_valid
FAIL
min_quoted_text_present
waived — floor 0%
egress_verified
pass
every_practical_object_has_source_id
n/a — no subject in this jurisdiction
source_tier_integrity_ok
pass
jurisdiction_source_floor_met
pass
tier_a_b_national_primary_pct
54.55
aggregator_only_jurisdiction_count
0
manual_override
Editorial metadata
Provenance only. Nothing below gates publication or affects the render.
Editorial metadata for Alaska, USA
Field
Value
trust.lawyer_review.status
never_reviewed
trust.lawyer_review.reviewer
no reviewer on record
trust.content_source
ai_generated
Provenance and declared absence
Disclosure model: module cards load OPEN; standing positions render in full; sub-briefs and jurisdiction briefs load as a clamped teaser with an explicit “read full” control carrying the true word count; earlier updates stay collapsed behind a counted summary. No text is hidden without disclosing how much of it there is.
Sentinel-fed modules receive no special rendering treatment. sentinel_feed is an attribution chip only: it does not suppress content, does not generate an absence reason code, and does not exclude the module from any count, filter, search index or export on this page.
Family taxonomy is renderer-level presentation config, not a JID field. Colour is always duplicated in text and is never the sole carrier of meaning.