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.
Montana, USA
US-MTschema crypto-v2.0.0trajectory: not yet assessedunregulated gap
Last updated · 8 categories · 16 sourced
findings · 18 sources in the cumulative register
8Categoriesbaseline.
16Findings.claims[]
3Tier-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
Montana's SB 265, the Financial Freedom and Innovation Act, took effect in October 2025 and layers a permissive new digital-asset market-structure framework onto the state's pre-existing zero-money-transmitter-licensing posture. The law creates a Securities Commissioner registration pathway allowing network-token issuers to obtain non-securities treatment, defines a new state-law category of network token distinct from a security, and affirmatively protects the rights of individuals and businesses to stake, operate blockchain nodes, and transfer digital assets. None of this adds AML/CFT controls; it adds market-structure clarity and rights protections on top of an already-permissive licensing baseline.
Other Developments
Zero-MTL posture reconfirmed. Montana's Division of Banking and Financial Institutions continues to require no state money-transmitter license for crypto exchanges, custodians, or payment processors; only federal FinCEN MSB registration applies. This is a total statutory absence rather than a crypto-specific carve-out, and it predates and sits independently of SB 265.
Token classification layered across two statutes. SB 265's network-token definition sits alongside the pre-existing HB 584 (2019), which exempts utility tokens from the Montana Securities Act. The two statutes together give Montana two distinct non-securities pathways for token issuers, though the exact codified MCA citation for HB 584's exemption was not independently re-confirmed against primary statutory text this cycle.
On-chain rights protected by statute. SB 265 explicitly protects the right to participate in staking and the right to operate blockchain nodes, an affirmative statutory protection rather than mere regulatory silence, which changes the risk calculus for infrastructure operators relative to states with no such protection on the books.
Consumer-protection proposals under discussion, not yet enacted. The Montana Commissioner of Securities and Insurance presented 2026 legislative testimony proposing daily transaction limits, mandatory on-screen irreversibility warnings, and detailed wallet-address receipts for crypto-ATM transactions. None of these proposals are yet enacted; they remain at the proposal stage amid rising crypto-fraud losses reported to the office.
Cross-Monitor Connections
The zero-MTL licensing posture and the absence of AML controls layered under SB 265 are directly relevant to financial-integrity's enabler-jurisdiction and AML/CFT-regime tracking, since Montana's federal-only AML layer for MSBs and crypto firms remains unchanged by the new digital-asset framework. The crypto-fraud enforcement action referenced in the consumer-protection proposals -- an Idaho resident charged on multiple felony counts over a crypto-investment scheme defrauding Montana residents -- also connects to financial-integrity's consumer-facing fraud tracking and to world-payments' consumer-protection surface, though neither is re-analyzed here.
Outlook
The Montana Blockchain and Digital Innovation Task Force is expected to produce crypto-ATM policy proposals by 2027 Q1, potentially including Montana's first money-transmission-adjacent licensing requirement of any kind, specifically targeted at ATM operators. Whether that carve-out extends to broader crypto exchange or custody activity, or remains narrowly scoped to ATMs, is not yet determinable. Watch for whether the Task Force's proposals preserve the zero-MTL posture for the broader crypto sector while imposing narrower ATM-specific controls, or signal a broader shift toward licensing.
8 of 8 categories
Signal
Density
Selections OR within a group, AND across groups. Press / to search.
Montana is the only U.S. state with no money-transmitter licensing statute of any kind, and the Division of Banking and Financial Institutions has publicly confirmed it does not regulate money transmitters, including crypto exchange and custody businesses. This is a structural absence rather than a crypto-specific carve-out; federal FinCEN MSB registration and other Montana licenses (e.g., consumer finance, escrow) may still apply depending on the activity mix.
Standing sub-brief286 words · last cycle 2026-09-21
Crypto Licensing
Montana's Division of Banking and Financial Institutions maintains no state money-transmitter licensing statute of any kind, and this total statutory absence extends to crypto exchanges, custodians, and payment processors -- only federal FinCEN MSB registration applies. This is not a crypto-specific carve-out but a complete absence of the underlying licensing regime, making Montana one of the lowest-friction US jurisdictions for crypto MSB and exchange onboarding. Layered onto this baseline, SB 265 (the Financial Freedom and Innovation Act, effective October 2025) creates a new registration pathway with the Montana Securities Commissioner's office, allowing network-token issuers to obtain non-securities treatment for their tokens. This registration option is additive to, not a replacement for, the absence of money-transmitter licensing -- an issuer can register under SB 265 for token classification purposes while still facing no state MTL requirement for the transmission activity itself.
The two developments together reinforce Montana's profile as a structural enabler jurisdiction for crypto onboarding: a state that adds market-structure clarity for token issuance while adding no licensing friction for the money-transmission layer that most other states regulate. This is treated as a stable, low-friction baseline rather than a new development in the licensing dimension itself, though SB 265's registration pathway is itself new this cycle.
Outlook
The Montana Blockchain and Digital Innovation Task Force is expected to produce crypto-ATM policy proposals by 2027 Q1. If enacted, an ATM-operator-specific licensing requirement would be Montana's first money-transmission-adjacent licensing requirement of any kind, a meaningful departure from the current zero-MTL baseline, though its scope may remain narrow to ATM operators rather than extending to exchanges or custodians generally. Whether the broader zero-MTL posture survives this narrower carve-out is the key licensing question to watch into 2027.
no periodic updates on record for this sub-brief
Sources and findings (4)
T1 · Montana Division of Banking and Financial InstitutionsMontana Division of Banking and Financial Institutions — The Montana Division of Banking and Financial Institutions does not regulate money transmitters, meaning standalone crypto exchange and custody businesses face no state money-transmitter licensing requirement in Montana.retrieved M5bindingin force
T3 · McDermott Will & EmeryMcDermott Will & Emery — Montana rescinded even an informal notice-filing practice for money transmitters, confirming that no licensing requirement exists in any form for crypto money-transmission activity in the state.retrieved M4bindingin force
T1 · FinCEN / U.S. Department of the TreasuryFinCEN / U.S. Department of the Treasury — Federal FinCEN Money Services Business registration continues to apply to Montana-based crypto exchange and custody businesses notwithstanding the absence of any state-level money-transmitter licensing requirement.retrieved M4bindingin force
T3 · Astraea CounselAstraea Counsel — Montana is characterized by legal-industry analysis as the cleanest 'no license' state for crypto because it has no money-transmitter licensing statute at all, distinguishing it from states with express statutory crypto exemptions.retrieved M3non-binding
Montana HB 584 (2019) created a state-law exemption from the Montana Securities Act for 'utility tokens' whose purpose is primarily consumptive, subject to conditions including a notice-of-intent filing with the state securities commissioner. This exemption operates only at the state securities-law layer; federal SEC/CFTC characterization of a given token as a security or commodity governs regardless of Montana's utility-token carve-out.
Standing sub-brief290 words · last cycle 2026-09-21
Token Classification
Montana now has two distinct, layered statutory pathways for treating tokens as non-securities. HB 584, enacted in 2019, exempts utility tokens from the Montana Securities Act -- an early and narrow carve-out. SB 265, effective October 2025, adds a second, broader mechanism: it defines network token as a new state-law category distinct from a security and creates a registration pathway with the Securities Commissioner's office that lets issuers obtain non-securities treatment for tokens meeting that definition. The two statutes are not identical in scope or mechanism -- HB 584 is a self-executing exemption for a narrower utility-token category, while SB 265 is an affirmative registration option for the broader network-token category -- and both currently coexist as part of Montana's token-classification framework.
The state-level classification created by these statutes does not bind federal securities or commodity characterization; a token could be classified as a network token or utility token under Montana law while still facing SEC or CFTC scrutiny at the federal level. This state/federal divergence is a live analytical point for any issuer relying on Montana's registration as sufficient comfort against federal enforcement risk. The exact codified MCA citation for HB 584's exemption has not been independently re-confirmed against primary statutory text this cycle; the current finding rests on a T4 legislative-tracker source rather than the codified statute itself, and this should be treated as a gap pending further verification.
Outlook
Watch for whether Montana courts or regulators address the interaction between the HB 584 utility-token exemption and the newer SB 265 network-token category, particularly for tokens that could plausibly qualify under either definition. Federal characterization developments, particularly at the SEC or CFTC, remain the more consequential variable for any issuer relying on Montana's state-level non-securities treatment.
no periodic updates on record for this sub-brief
Sources and findings (4)
T4 · CoinDeskCoinDesk — Montana HB 584, signed by Governor Steve Bullock and effective 1 July 2019, exempts utility tokens from being considered securities under Montana law, with caveats including that the token's purpose must be primarily consumptive.retrieved M4bindingin force
T4 · CoinDeskCoinDesk — Under HB 584, an issuer relying on the utility-token exemption must not market the token as an investment or for speculation, must make the token's consumptive purpose available within 180 days of sale, and must file a notice of intent to sell with the state securities commissioner.retrieved M3bindingin force
T4 · CoinDeskCoinDesk — Federal securities law supersedes Montana's state-level utility-token exemption, so the real-world scope of HB 584's protection is limited where a token is independently characterized as a security under federal law.retrieved M4bindingin force
T2 · LegiScanLegiScan — The exact codified Montana Code Annotated section number and full statutory definition of 'utility token' scope under HB 584 has not been independently confirmed against a leg.mt.gov primary copy; only a third-party LegiScan-hosted enrolled bill text was accessible.retrieved M2non-bindingour coverage gap, expected to resolve on a re-run
Montana SB 178 (2023), a 'right to mine' law, protects cryptocurrency mining activity from certain local restrictions, including zoning ordinances that had targeted mining operations at the county level. This is Montana's principal state-level on-chain-activity statute; no separate Montana statute addresses staking, DeFi lending, DEX operation, node operation, or validator activity specifically.
Standing sub-brief239 words · last cycle 2026-09-21
On-Chain Activity Regime
SB 265 affirmatively protects the rights of individuals and businesses to participate in staking and to operate blockchain nodes, effective October 2025. This is a materially different posture from mere regulatory silence: an explicit statutory protection changes the risk calculus for infrastructure operators, since it forecloses at least the state-level avenue for future restrictive rulemaking absent a legislative amendment. The protection covers node operation and staking specifically, rather than a broader catalog of on-chain activities, and it sits within the same SB 265 framework that also creates the network-token registration pathway and the CBDC-acceptance prohibition for state governing authorities.
The liberalising direction of this provision is consistent with the broader SB 265 package, which layers rights protections and market-structure clarity onto Montana's pre-existing zero-money-transmitter-licensing baseline without adding any AML/CFT controls to the underlying activity. For an operator running staking infrastructure or blockchain nodes from Montana, this is one of the more favorable statutory postures among US states, though the protection's practical scope beyond the specific activities named in the statute has not been tested.
Outlook
Whether the staking and node-operation protections extend to cover future activity types -- such as validator services for new consensus mechanisms, or liquid-staking-derivative issuance -- is not yet addressed by the statute and would likely require either regulatory guidance or a further legislative amendment to clarify. No enforcement or litigation testing the scope of these protections has been identified this cycle.
no periodic updates on record for this sub-brief
Sources and findings (2)
T4 · CoinDeskCoinDesk — Montana SB 178 (2023), titled 'Generally revise cryptocurrency laws,' was passed 4 May 2023 and signed into law, effectively preserving the rights of cryptocurrency miners in the state and likely superseding local zoning ordinances that targeted the mining industry.retrieved M4bindingin force
T3 · Astraea CounselAstraea Counsel — No Montana statute or regulator guidance specifically addresses staking, DeFi lending, DEX operation, node operation, validator activity, or tokenization; these on-chain activities have no state-level analog in Montana beyond general securities and money-transmission frameworks.retrieved M2non-bindinga fact about the regime
Montana has no state-specific stablecoin issuance, reserve, redemption, disclosure, or systemic-designation regime. Payment stablecoin issuance is governed at the federal level (e.g., the GENIUS Act framework), and no Montana statute or regulator guidance creates a bespoke state-level stablecoin regime distinct from the general absence of money-transmitter licensing.
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.
Montana consumer protection touchpoints for crypto are limited to two state-law strands: (1) the HB 584 utility-token notice-of-intent filing, which functions as a disclosure mechanism, and (2) SB 118 (2017), Montana's Revised Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act, which addresses fiduciary management of digital property including digital currency (custody/estate context). No dedicated crypto marketing-restriction, suitability, or complaint-handling regime exists at the state level.
Standing sub-brief191 words · last cycle 2026-09-21
Consumer Protection
The Montana Commissioner of Securities and Insurance presented 2026 legislative testimony proposing daily transaction limits, mandatory on-screen irreversibility warnings, and detailed wallet-address receipts for crypto-ATM transactions. None of these proposals have been enacted; they remain at the proposal stage, put forward amid rising fraud losses reported to the Commissioner's office. This is an active regulator concern reflected in specific, itemized proposals rather than a binding new consumer-protection rule currently in force.
The existing enforcement backstop for consumer harm in the crypto space runs through the Montana Securities Act's fraud-enforcement provisions, under which the Commissioner's office has pursued action against unlicensed schemes. The crypto-ATM-specific proposals under discussion would, if enacted, represent Montana's first dedicated consumer-protection rule targeted specifically at the ATM channel, distinct from the general securities-fraud enforcement authority the office already exercises.
Outlook
Whether the crypto-ATM consumer-protection proposals advance to enactment, and whether they are folded into the Blockchain and Digital Innovation Task Force's broader 2027 Q1 policy output, are the two questions to watch. If enacted, transaction limits and mandatory warnings would mark Montana's first binding crypto-specific consumer-protection rule, a notable shift from the state's otherwise permissive posture.
no periodic updates on record for this sub-brief
Sources and findings (2)
T4 · CoinDeskCoinDesk — Issuers relying on Montana's HB 584 utility-token exemption must file a notice of intent to sell the tokens with the state's securities commissioner, functioning as a baseline disclosure mechanism rather than full securities registration.retrieved M3bindingin force
T2 · LegiScanLegiScan — Montana SB 118 (2017), the Revised Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act, addresses fiduciary management and access to digital property, including digital currency, providing a custody/estate-administration framework for crypto assets held by fiduciaries.retrieved M3bindingin force
Montana has no crypto-specific tax statute. Crypto tax treatment follows the federal IRS position that convertible virtual currency is property (not currency), which flows through to Montana's state individual income tax base. Montana applies a distinct, generally lower bracket structure to net long-term capital gains, which would apply to long-term crypto asset dispositions on the same basis as other capital property.
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 · McDermott Will & EmeryMcDermott Will & Emery — The IRS treats convertible virtual currency as property rather than currency, creating capital gains or ordinary income tax consequences for virtually every crypto transaction, a characterization that flows through to Montana's state income tax base absent any Montana-specific override.retrieved M3bindingin force
T2 · LegiScanLegiScan — Montana applies a distinct net long-term capital gains tax bracket structure under its individual income tax statute (Title 15, MCA), separate from ordinary income brackets, which governs gains on long-term-held capital assets including cryptocurrency.retrieved M3bindingin force
T3 · McDermott Will & EmeryMcDermott Will & Emery — Crypto received as compensation for services, mining rewards, or staking rewards is treated as ordinary income at fair market value for federal tax purposes, a characterization that flows through to Montana individual income tax absent a state-specific carve-out.retrieved M3bindingin force
Montana has no state-level cross-border crypto transfer restriction, sanctions-nexus rule, reporting threshold, or travel-rule regime distinct from the federal framework. Cross-border crypto transfers by Montana-based businesses are governed exclusively by federal OFAC sanctions screening and FinCEN travel-rule requirements, which apply uniformly regardless of Montana's absence of state money-transmitter licensing.
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.
AML/CFT obligations applicable to Montana-based crypto businesses (KYC/CDD, travel rule, SAR/STR reporting, sanctions screening, record-keeping, risk assessment) are sourced federally via FinCEN/BSA and are covered under the crypto consumer's subscribed Financial Integrity Module (FIM) aml_ctf baseline rather than produced independently in this jurisdiction research pass, per fleet module-subscription doctrine.
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 · FinCEN / U.S. Department of the TreasuryFinCEN / U.S. Department of the Treasury — AML/CFT requirements for Montana crypto businesses are governed at the federal level and are tracked under the crypto consumer's subscribed FIM aml_ctf module rather than duplicated in this jurisdiction baseline.retrieved M1non-bindinga fact about the regime
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
50.0
aggregator_only_jurisdiction_count
0
manual_override
Editorial metadata
Provenance only. Nothing below gates publication or affects the render.
Editorial metadata for Montana, 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.