Not publishable as-is. 5 of 8 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.
Australia
AUschema crypto-v2.0.0trajectory: not yet assessedin transitionoverlaps: FIM, WPM
Last updated update date not yet available · 7 categories · 29 sourced
findings · 23 sources in the cumulative register
7Categoriesbaseline.
29Findings.claims[]
0Tier-1 sourcesrun_metadata.t1_source_count
Confidence mix(sums to 7 rendered categories; click to filter)
No categories moved this cycle.
Jurisdiction brief
No content recorded at this JID path.
7 of 7 categories
Signal
Density
Selections OR within a group, AND across groups. Press / to search.
Australia is mid-transition from a 'financial product by function' regime administered under existing Corporations Act licensing (AFSL) to a bespoke statutory framework. The Corporations Amendment (Digital Assets Framework) Act 2026 (DAF Act) passed Parliament 1 April 2026 and received Royal Assent 8 April 2026, creating two new regulated categories — Digital Asset Platforms (DAPs) and Tokenised Custody Platforms (TCPs) — both requiring an Australian Financial Services Licence (AFSL) from ASIC, but the Act does not commence until 9 April 2027 (an 18-month implementation runway). In the interim, ASIC has extended a sector-wide no-action position (originally to 30 June 2026, now to 30 September 2026) under updated INFO 225 guidance, requiring firms to lodge AFSL applications (or notify ASIC of intent for Market/CS facility licences) by that date to avoid enforcement exposure for operating without a required existing licence.
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 (4)
T1 · ASICASIC — The Corporations Amendment (Digital Assets Framework) Act 2026 requires operators of digital asset platforms and tokenised custody platforms to obtain an Australian Financial Services Licence from ASIC.retrieved M5bindingenacted not yet effective
T1 · ASICASIC — ASIC extended its sector-wide no-action position for digital asset businesses providing financial services to 30 September 2026, giving firms additional time to apply for or vary an AFS licence before enforcement risk applies.retrieved M4bindingin force
T1 · ASICASIC — Under current law, providers of financial services involving digital asset financial products must hold an AFS licence (or variation to an existing licence) and were directed to apply by 30 June 2026 before the original no-action position expired.retrieved M4bindingin force
T1 · ASICASIC — Businesses that require an Australian Market Licence or Clearing and Settlement facility licence must notify ASIC in writing of their intention to apply and hold a pre-meeting with ASIC by the no-action deadline (extended to 30 September 2026).retrieved M3bindingin force
ASIC applies a functional, technology-neutral test under the Corporations Act 2001 rather than bespoke crypto categories: whether a digital asset is a 'financial product' turns on its substantive features. Updated INFO 225 (2025/2026) explicitly treats many stablecoins, wrapped tokens, tokenised securities and digital asset wallets as financial products, while noting that classification of DeFi arrangements and many utility-style tokens depends on individual facts and is not addressed definitively by the guidance.
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 (4)
T4 · The BlockThe Block — ASIC considers products such as stablecoins, wrapped tokens, tokenized securities and digital asset wallets to be financial products requiring a local financial services licence to offer.retrieved M5bindingin force
T1 · ASICASIC — INFO 225 explicitly does not comment on when a person in a decentralised finance (DeFi) arrangement may require a licence, or what constitutes 'true DeFi', leaving classification dependent on the individual facts of each arrangement.retrieved M4non-binding
T1 · ASICASIC — A digital asset that confers rights and benefits meeting the three statutory elements of a managed investment scheme is likely to be treated by ASIC as an interest in a managed investment scheme regardless of whether it is marketed as an investment.retrieved M4bindingin force
T1 · ASICASIC — INFO 225 adopts a functional and technology-neutral approach and explicitly rejects the notion that digital assets constitute a discrete asset class, meaning many utility-style tokens are not automatically classified as financial products absent investment-like features.retrieved M3non-binding
ASIC's INFO 225 distinguishes native proof-of-stake staking from 'staking-as-a-service' / managed staking arrangements, with the latter more likely to constitute a financial product, and the Reserve Bank of Australia's Project Acacia has facilitated regulatory relief for wholesale tokenisation testing. DeFi lending/borrowing classification remains fact-dependent and unaddressed definitively by the regulator. No dedicated Australian regime specifically targets crypto mining, standalone node operation, validator services, or DEX operation as distinct categories; these are assessed, if at all, under the same functional financial-product test.
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 (4)
T1 · ASICASIC — Updated INFO 225 adds worked examples distinguishing native proof-of-stake staking from managed staking/staking-as-a-service arrangements, with the latter more likely to be treated as a financial product.retrieved M4non-binding
T1 · ASICASIC — ASIC's guidance does not comment on when participation in a DeFi lending or borrowing arrangement requires a licence, leaving this dependent on the facts and the person's role in the arrangement.retrieved M3non-binding
T1 · ASICASIC — ASIC provided practical regulatory relief in 2025 to facilitate the Reserve Bank of Australia's Project Acacia, a research project enabling real-world testing of tokenised asset transactions and digital money.retrieved M3bindingin force
primary source not yet reachedM2non-bindingour coverage gap, expected to resolve on a re-run
Stablecoins are currently regulated in Australia indirectly through ASIC's financial-product classification (typically as a non-cash payment facility), requiring issuers to hold an AFSL, with class relief granted to secondary distributors of stablecoins issued by an AFSL-licensed issuer. A dedicated statutory framework for 'payment stablecoins' is still at the proposal stage: Treasury's Payments System Modernisation (Regulation of Payment Service Providers) Tranche 1a is draft legislation only and has not been enacted — CAUTION: treat reserve/redemption obligations under that reform as proposed, not settled 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 (4)
T1 · ASICASIC — ASIC treats stablecoins as financial products (typically non-cash payment facilities), requiring issuers to hold an AFS licence, with class relief for distributors dependent on the stablecoin being issued by an AFS-licensed issuer.retrieved M5bindingin force
T1 · ASICASIC — Intermediaries relying on ASIC's class relief for secondary distribution of an AFS-licensed stablecoin must make the exempt stablecoin's Product Disclosure Statement available to their clients where the issuer has prepared one.retrieved M4bindingin force
T1 · ASICASIC — ASIC's worked examples describe stablecoin structures where holders have a right to redeem their tokens for the reference currency at any time, subject to conditions, as a factor supporting financial-product classification.retrieved M3non-binding
T1 · ASICASIC — Treasury's Payments System Modernisation reform includes draft (Tranche 1a) legislation proposing to regulate payment stablecoins, but this remains a consultation-stage proposal and is not yet enacted.retrieved M4bindingproposed
Consumer protection for crypto in Australia currently rests on general Corporations Act / ASIC Act misleading-conduct prohibitions (RG 234, updated June 2026), influencer-specific guidance (INFO 269), and ASIC's consumer-facing Moneysmart warnings, which highlight elevated Gen Z exposure to crypto 'finfluencer' marketing. The DAF Act (not yet in force) will add statutory custody-segregation, standardized disclosure and dispute-resolution/compensation requirements specific to digital asset platforms and tokenised custody platforms once it commences in April 2027.
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 (5)
T1 · ASICASIC — ASIC's updated Regulatory Guide 234 (June 2026) provides guidance to help promoters of financial products, including digital assets, comply with obligations not to make false or misleading statements or engage in misleading or deceptive conduct in advertising.retrieved M4bindingin force
T1 · ASICASIC — ASIC's Information Sheet 269 sets out how financial services laws apply to social media influencers discussing financial products, including that receiving payment for crypto-related comments increases the likelihood of providing unlicensed financial product advice.retrieved M4bindingin force
T1 · ASICASIC — ASIC research found that almost one in four Gen Z Australians own cryptocurrency and that 72% have seen social media advertising encouraging crypto investment in the past 12 months, prompting ASIC to publicly urge consumers to verify financial claims via Moneysmart.retrieved M3non-binding
T4 · CoinDeskCoinDesk — Operators of digital asset platforms and tokenised custody platforms under the DAF Act must safeguard client assets, including obligations aimed at reducing commingling, insolvency and misuse of customer assets.retrieved M5bindingenacted not yet effective
T1 · ASICASIC — ASIC's no-action position for digital asset businesses is conditioned on the firm holding Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) membership, and the DAF Act requires AFSL holders to maintain dispute resolution and compensation systems.retrieved M4bindingin force
The Australian Taxation Office treats cryptocurrency as property/a CGT asset rather than money or foreign currency, requiring capital gains/losses to be reported on disposal, with data-matching programs compelling exchanges to supply customer transaction data. A 2026-reported Budget proposal to replace the 50% CGT discount with an inflation-indexed model (which would affect crypto held over one year) had not been legislated as of the reported date — CAUTION: treat as a media-reported proposal, not enacted 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 (4)
T4 · The BlockThe Block — Cryptocurrencies in Australia are treated as property and are therefore subject to capital gains tax, which must be reported to the ATO on disposal.retrieved M5bindingin force
T4 · The BlockThe Block — The Australian government reportedly plans to replace the 50% CGT discount on assets held over one year (including cryptocurrencies) with an inflation-indexed model, with assets acquired after budget night still qualifying for the existing discount until mid-2027 under a proposed transition period.retrieved M4bindingproposed
T4 · CoinDeskCoinDesk — The ATO's data collection protocol requires designated cryptocurrency exchanges to provide names, addresses, birthdays and transaction details of traders to help audit compliance with capital gains tax obligations.retrieved M4bindingin force
T4 · CoinDeskCoinDesk — The ATO's foundational position is that Bitcoin is neither money nor a foreign currency and its supply is not a financial supply for GST purposes, though it is an asset for CGT purposes.retrieved M3bindingin force
Cross-border crypto activity in Australia is governed principally through AUSTRAC's registration and reporting regime for digital currency exchanges under the AML/CTF Act 2006, rather than a crypto-specific cross-border capital control. There is no blanket outbound restriction on Australians transacting with offshore crypto exchanges, though AUSTRAC has proposed (not yet enacted) new powers to restrict or prohibit high-risk products such as crypto ATMs, citing their use in cross-border money laundering. CAUTION: treat the proposed AUSTRAC product-restriction power as pending, not in force.
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 (4)
T4 · CoinDeskCoinDesk — Crypto ATM and digital currency exchange providers must register with AUSTRAC, monitor transactions and complete know-your-customer checks under the AML/CTF Act 2006, including reporting of large cash transactions.retrieved M4bindingin force
T4 · CoinDeskCoinDesk — Australia's Home Affairs Minister proposed granting AUSTRAC new powers to restrict or prohibit high-risk products, explicitly naming crypto ATMs, due to their role in moving funds to high-risk jurisdictions, though this remains a proposal and not enacted law.retrieved M3bindingproposed
T4 · CoinDeskCoinDesk — There is no current blanket Australian law prohibiting residents from using offshore digital currency exchanges; enforcement instead focuses on AML/CTF registration and reporting compliance by exchanges operating in or into Australia, such as KuCoin's AUSTRAC DCE registration to legally offer services locally.retrieved M3non-binding
T3 · DECADECA — Cross-border virtual asset transfers involving Australian-registered exchanges are subject to FATF-aligned customer due diligence and record-keeping expectations administered via the AML/CTF framework, though AU-specific travel-rule transmission thresholds were not independently confirmed in this pass.retrieved M3non-bindingour coverage gap, expected to resolve on a re-run
No categories match.
Filters combine as OR inside a group and AND across
groups.
Publication gate
Blocking. 5 failing check(s).
schema_valid
FAIL
min_architecture_patterns
0
min_red_flags
0
min_controls
0
worked_examples_count
0
decision_tree_nodes
0
counterparty_diligence_questions
0
min_t1_per_instrument_met
FAIL
min_quoted_text_present
waived — floor 0%
translation_provenance_recorded
FAIL
egress_verified
pass
board_briefing_present
FAIL
every_practical_object_has_source_id
n/a — no subject in this jurisdiction
source_tier_integrity_ok
pass
jurisdiction_source_floor_met
FAIL
tier_a_b_national_primary_pct
0.0
aggregator_only_jurisdiction_count
0
manual_override
Editorial metadata
Provenance only. Nothing below gates publication or affects the render.
Editorial metadata for Australia
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.