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.
Curaçao
CWschema crypto-v2.0.0trajectory: not yet assessedregulatedoverlaps: FIM
Last updated update date not yet available · 8 categories · 13 sourced
findings · 11 sources in the cumulative register
8Categoriesbaseline.
13Findings.claims[]
0Tier-1 sourcesrun_metadata.t1_source_count
Confidence mix(sums to 8 rendered categories; click to filter)
No categories moved this cycle.
Jurisdiction brief
No content recorded at this JID path.
8 of 8 categories
Signal
Density
Selections OR within a group, AND across groups. Press / to search.
The Cayman Islands regulates virtual asset businesses under the Virtual Asset (Service Providers) Act, 2020 (VASPA), administered by the Cayman Islands Monetary Authority (CIMA). VASPA originally established a phased registration/notification regime (Phase One, effective October 2020) followed by licensing for higher-risk activities. In 2025, the Virtual Asset (Service Providers) (Amendment) Regulations extended mandatory CIMA licensing specifically to virtual asset custody and trading platform businesses, effective 1 April 2025, with a transitional filing deadline of 29 June 2025 for incumbents. Existing CIMA-regulated entities may in some cases operate under a waiver rather than separate VASPA registration.
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)
T4 · CoinDeskCoinDesk — VASPs already working in the Cayman Islands, or planning to, must notify and register with the Cayman Islands Monetary Authority (CIMA) and comply with AML/CFT rules under Phase One of the virtual assets framework, effective 28 October 2020.retrieved M5bindingin force
T4 · CoinDeskCoinDesk — Any company incorporated or entity registered under the Cayman Islands Companies Act that provides virtual asset services must be registered or licensed under VASPA, or hold an existing CIMA-granted waiver.retrieved M5bindingin forceour coverage gap, expected to resolve on a re-run
T4 · CoinDeskCoinDesk — Under the Virtual Asset (Service Providers) (Amendment) Regulations, virtual asset custody and trading platform businesses operating in or from the Cayman Islands must obtain a CIMA license, effective 1 April 2025.retrieved M5bindingin force
T4 · CoinDeskCoinDesk — Firms already operating virtual asset custody or trading businesses in the Cayman Islands were required to submit their CIMA license applications by 29 June 2025 under a transitional filing window tied to the 2025 amendment regulations.retrieved M4bindingin force
T4 · CoinDeskCoinDesk — An existing CIMA-regulated entity may conduct virtual asset services without separate VASPA registration if it obtains a waiver from CIMA under the Act.retrieved M3bindingin forceour coverage gap, expected to resolve on a re-run
VASPA regulates by activity (exchange, transfer, custody, administration, issuance-related services) rather than through a MiCA-style differentiated token taxonomy. Security-type tokens and related dealing/advisory activity appear to fall under the separate Securities Investment Business Act (SIBA) framework, evidenced by crypto firms holding both VASP registration and a distinct Cayman securities investment business license. No CIMA-specific classification guidance for stablecoins, e-money tokens, asset-referenced tokens or NFTs was identified 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 (2)
T3 · SEC EDGAR filer disclosureSEC EDGAR filer disclosure — The Cayman Islands regulates security-type token dealing/advisory activity under the Securities Investment Business Act (SIBA), separately from VASPA registration/licensing for virtual asset services, as evidenced by crypto firms holding both a VASP registration and a distinct securities investment business license in the jurisdiction.retrieved M4bindingin forceour coverage gap, expected to resolve on a re-run
T4 · CoinDeskCoinDesk — Cayman Islands primary legislation (VASPA) does not set out a differentiated taxonomy distinguishing utility tokens, stablecoins, and asset-referenced tokens; virtual assets are regulated primarily by the service activity performed rather than by token type.retrieved M3non-binding
No CIMA guidance or Cayman statutory text specific to staking, DeFi lending, DEX operation, mining, node operation, validator activity, or tokenization was located in this research pass. VASPA's licensing scope (custody, exchange/trading platforms) is the closest analog but does not explicitly enumerate these on-chain activities in the secondary sources reviewed. This module is being emitted with an explicit research gap pending direct access to CIMA rulebooks or the Cayman legislation portal.
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 bespoke Cayman Islands stablecoin-specific issuance authorisation, reserve requirement, redemption right, disclosure, or systemic designation framework was identified in this research pass. Stablecoins used as part of a VASP's exchange/custody/transfer services would likely fall under general VASPA licensing, but no CIMA stablecoin-specific rulebook was located.
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.
CIMA's licensing gatekeeping function for VASPs incorporates consumer protection and market confidence considerations, as demonstrated in a contested license rejection where CIMA cited risk to consumer protection and market confidence as grounds for refusal. The SEC-CIMA supervisory cooperation MOU also identifies investor protection as a shared regulatory objective for cross-border regulated entities. No dedicated marketing-restriction, custody-segregation, or complaint-handling rulebook specific to virtual asset consumers was independently confirmed 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 (2)
T4 · The BlockThe Block — CIMA may reject a VASP license/registration application where the applicant's business model is assessed as posing risk to market confidence, consumer protection, or the reputation of the Cayman Islands as a financial centre.retrieved M4bindingin forceour coverage gap, expected to resolve on a re-run
T1 · U.S. Securities and Exchange CommissionU.S. Securities and Exchange Commission — The SEC-CIMA cooperation framework identifies investor protection as a shared regulatory objective relevant to oversight of cross-border regulated entities, including Cayman-domiciled investment/crypto businesses.retrieved M2non-binding
The Cayman Islands maintains a general zero direct-taxation regime applicable to all entities, including crypto asset businesses: no tax on income, capital gains, or dividend withholding. No Cayman-specific crypto tax statute (e.g., VAT/GST or a dedicated crypto reporting-obligation instrument) was identified; the general zero-tax framework is assumed to extend to crypto activity absent a carve-out.
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 (3)
T3 · SEC EDGAR filer disclosureSEC EDGAR filer disclosure — Cayman Islands law does not impose tax on capital gains for entities incorporated or operating there, and there is no general capital gains tax regime that would apply to crypto asset disposals.retrieved M5bindingin forcea fact about the regime
T3 · SEC EDGAR filer disclosureSEC EDGAR filer disclosure — Cayman Islands entities, including crypto asset businesses, are not subject to Cayman Islands income tax on trading or business profits under current law.retrieved M5bindingin forcea fact about the regime
T3 · SEC EDGAR filer disclosureSEC EDGAR filer disclosure — No Cayman Islands withholding tax is imposed on dividend or distribution payments made by Cayman entities, including those engaged in crypto asset business.retrieved M4bindingin forcea fact about the regime
The Cayman Islands imposes no general exchange control or currency restrictions, which extends to the movement of crypto assets absent a specific statutory carve-out. No crypto-specific outbound restriction, sanctions-nexus rule, or reporting-threshold instrument was independently identified. Cross-border supervisory cooperation (e.g., CIMA-ADGM FSRA enforcement collaboration, and the SEC-CIMA MOU) exists at the regulator level but this is not a claim under this module's enum (captured as disambiguation context in aml_cft_regime and consumer_protection).
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)
T3 · SEC EDGAR filer disclosureSEC EDGAR filer disclosure — The Cayman Islands imposes no exchange control or currency restrictions, meaning there are no general outbound capital restrictions on transferring assets, including crypto assets, out of the jurisdiction.retrieved M4bindingin forcea fact about the regime
Crypto AML/CFT obligations for JID=CW are governed by the FIM aml_ctf module and are intentionally not independently assessed or claimed in this crypto baseline to avoid duplicate ownership. For disambiguation only: Cayman Islands VASPs are subject to AML/CFT supervision by CIMA, and the Cayman Islands underwent CFATF/FATF mutual evaluation and was subsequently removed from the FATF increased-monitoring list in October 2023. Direct collaboration between CIMA and the Abu Dhabi Global Market Financial Services Regulatory Authority has also been cited by FATF as an example of cross-border VASP enforcement cooperation. No aml_cft_regime claims are produced here; see FIM.
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. 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 Curaçao
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.