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.
Massachusetts, USA
US-MAschema crypto-v2.0.0trajectory: not yet assessedregulatedoverlaps: FIM, WPM
Last updated update date not yet available · 7 categories · 16 sourced
findings · 14 sources in the cumulative register
7Categoriesbaseline.
16Findings.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.
Massachusetts has no bespoke crypto-asset licensing statute. Virtual-currency exchanges, custodians and other VASP-type businesses operating in the Commonwealth are regulated under the state's general money-transmitter licensing law, administered by the Massachusetts Division of Banks (part of the Office of Consumer Affairs & Business Regulation). Businesses typically apply through the Nationwide Multistate Licensing System (NMLS), the common multistate infrastructure most U.S. states use for licensing administration, though NMLS itself does not set substantive licensing standards. Whether Massachusetts has adopted any crypto-specific carve-out or exemption from the general MTL regime has not been independently confirmed in this research 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)
T2 · FinCENFinCEN — Massachusetts Division of Banks, housed within the Office of Consumer Affairs & Business Regulation, is the state authority responsible for money-transmitter licensing that applies to virtual-currency exchange and custody businesses operating in the Commonwealth.retrieved M5bindingin force
T2 · FinCENFinCEN — No bespoke Massachusetts crypto-asset licensing statute distinct from the Commonwealth's general money-transmission licensing regime has been confirmed; crypto exchange/custody businesses appear to be regulated exclusively via that general regime absent contrary primary-source evidence.retrieved M4non-binding
Massachusetts has no independent state token-taxonomy. Token characterization for securities purposes is governed by federal SEC/CFTC doctrine (the Howey test and, since early 2026, the SEC's five-category crypto-asset framework), while the Massachusetts Securities Division (within the Office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth) independently enforces the state Uniform Securities Act against unregistered token/ICO offerings sold to Massachusetts residents.
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)
T4 · CoinDeskCoinDesk — In January 2018 the Massachusetts Securities Division charged a Brookline, MA resident and his company with selling unregistered securities through an ICO of 'caviar' tokens, alleging the token sale was a textbook unregistered securities offering under state law.retrieved M4bindingin force
T4 · CoinDeskCoinDesk — In March 2018 the Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth ordered five ICO issuers to halt their token campaigns and offer investor refunds after finding the offerings violated the state's securities laws governing unregistered securities.retrieved M4bindingin force
T1 · U.S. Securities and Exchange CommissionU.S. Securities and Exchange Commission — The federal SEC's 2026 interpretive release classifies crypto assets into five categories — digital commodities, digital collectibles, digital tools, stablecoins, and digital securities — a framework that governs token-as-security characterization applicable to Massachusetts market participants regardless of state MTL licensing status.retrieved M4bindingin force
No Massachusetts-specific licensing, registration, or prohibition regime targeting on-chain activities (staking, DeFi lending, mining, node/validator operation, tokenization) has been identified. Such activities are subject to the general MTL framework only insofar as they constitute money transmission, and to federal banking-agency statements on crypto-asset custody/safekeeping that flow through to MA-chartered or MA-supervised institutions.
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 · Federal Reserve BoardFederal Reserve Board — No Massachusetts-specific regulatory regime for on-chain activities such as staking, DeFi lending, mining, or validator/node operation has been identified; the closest applicable overlay is federal banking-agency guidance on crypto-asset safekeeping for MA-chartered or MA-supervised institutions.retrieved M2non-bindinga fact about the regime
Massachusetts has not enacted a state-specific stablecoin issuance, reserve, or redemption regime. Stablecoin regulation in the U.S. is now anchored at the federal level under the GENIUS Act framework, referenced in the SEC's 2026 interpretive release, which will categorically exclude qualifying 'payment stablecoins' from the securities definition once the Act's provisions take effect; non-qualifying stablecoins remain subject to case-by-case federal securities analysis. No Massachusetts-specific overlay on this federal baseline 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.
no periodic updates on record for this sub-brief
Sources and findings (2)
T1 · U.S. Securities and Exchange CommissionU.S. Securities and Exchange Commission — Payment stablecoins issued by a permitted stablecoin issuer under the GENIUS Act will categorically not be treated as securities once the Act's provisions become effective; as of the SEC's 2026 release, the GENIUS Act was not yet effective.retrieved M4bindingenacted not yet effective
T2 · FinCENFinCEN — No Massachusetts-specific stablecoin issuance, reserve-requirement, or redemption-right statute has been identified; the Commonwealth appears to rely entirely on the federal framework for stablecoin regulation.retrieved M3non-bindinga fact about the regime
Massachusetts consumer protection relevant to crypto is enforced primarily through the Attorney General's Office (general consumer-protection authority) and the Securities Division (investment-fraud enforcement). The AGO has issued public consumer alerts on crypto-enabled scams and has formally advocated to the SEC for enhanced crypto-custody and DeFi risk-disclosure requirements, citing the practical difficulty of tracing or recovering funds lost through unregulated decentralized exchanges.
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)
T4 · CoinDeskCoinDesk — The Massachusetts government issued a public consumer alert warning residents, citing FTC data on crypto-linked fraud, that requests for payment in cryptocurrency are a red flag for romance and impersonation scams, including scams targeting the LGBTQIA+ community during Pride Month.retrieved M3non-binding
T2 · Massachusetts Office of the Attorney General (filed via SEC public comment docket)Massachusetts Office of the Attorney General (filed via SEC public comment docket) — The Massachusetts Attorney General's Office recommended to the SEC that investment advisers trading clients' cryptocurrency assets through decentralized exchanges be required to provide clear, written, pre-trade disclosures of the risks and vulnerabilities associated with such exchanges.retrieved M3non-binding
T2 · Massachusetts Office of the Attorney General (filed via SEC public comment docket)Massachusetts Office of the Attorney General (filed via SEC public comment docket) — The Massachusetts Attorney General's Office noted that decentralized exchanges' lack of KYC protocols and dedicated customer support makes it practically impossible for a state regulator such as the AGO to trace or recoup funds through seizure or forfeiture in connection with unlawful crypto investment activity conducted via such platforms.retrieved M3non-binding
Massachusetts personal income tax conforms to the federal characterization of digital assets as property, meaning dispositions generally trigger capital gains or loss recognition; no Massachusetts Department of Revenue guidance specific to virtual currency, staking rewards, or NFTs distinct from this federal conformity baseline was located. New federal Form 1099-DA broker reporting (first issued February 2026, covering 2025 sales) will materially increase third-party reporting relevant to both federal and Massachusetts compliance.
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 · U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (EDGAR filing)U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (EDGAR filing) — Current IRS guidance treats digital assets such as bitcoin as property, with transactions involving the payment of ether or bitcoin for goods and services treated as barter transactions triggering capital gains recognition; Massachusetts personal income tax, which conforms to federal gross income concepts, follows this characterization absent contrary state-specific guidance.retrieved M4bindingin force
T4 · CoinDeskCoinDesk — Beginning with the 2025 tax year, cryptocurrency exchanges are required to issue federal Form 1099-DA declaring cost basis and sale proceeds directly to the IRS, with brokers required to have issued the first such forms by February 17, 2026, materially increasing third-party reporting of crypto dispositions relevant to Massachusetts income-tax compliance.retrieved M4bindingin force
T4 · CoinDeskCoinDesk — No Massachusetts Department of Revenue guidance specific to the taxation of virtual currency, staking rewards, or NFTs distinct from federal IRS treatment has been identified in this research pass.retrieved M3non-bindingour coverage gap, expected to resolve on a re-run
No Massachusetts-specific outbound restriction on crypto-asset transfers exists. Cross-border crypto transfers by MA-based money transmitters and exchanges are governed by federal sanctions and AML frameworks — OFAC SDN screening and FinCEN's Funds Travel Rule for qualifying transmittals — which the Division of Banks incorporates by reference through general MTL safety-and-soundness and compliance expectations rather than through a distinct state cross-border regime.
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)
T1 · FinCENFinCEN — U.S. individuals and institutions dealing in digital currency, including Massachusetts-licensed money transmitters, must screen against OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals list and implement policies to prevent persons in sanctioned jurisdictions from opening accounts or trading in digital currency.retrieved M4bindingin force
T2 · FinCENFinCEN — No Massachusetts-specific outbound restriction on crypto-asset transfers has been identified beyond the federal OFAC sanctions and FinCEN Travel Rule baseline.retrieved M2non-bindinga fact about the regime
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 Massachusetts, 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.