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.
Texas, USA
US-TXschema crypto-v2.0.0trajectory: not yet assessedregulatedoverlaps: FIM, WPM
Last updated · 8 categories · 21 sourced
findings · 25 sources in the cumulative register
8Categoriesbaseline.
21Findings.claims[]
13Tier-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
Texas Finance Code Chapter 161, created by SB 1705 and effective September 1, 2025, requires virtual currency kiosk operators to register each kiosk with the Texas Department of Banking and obtain prior approval before activation, alongside mandatory risk disclosures warning customers of the volatile and unregulated nature of virtual currency, a 3,000 dollar daily transaction cap, and a 72-hour hold on first-time-customer transactions. This is the leading licensing and consumer-protection development for Texas this cycle, and it coexists with a persistent structural feature of the Texas crypto framework: under Texas Department of Banking Supervisory Memorandum 1037, revised January 2025, non-stablecoin centralized virtual currency is not treated as money under the Texas Finance Code, meaning purely crypto-to-crypto exchange activity remains exempt from money-transmission licensure. Kiosk operation is therefore now a licensed activity while generic exchange activity involving non-stablecoin virtual currency remains outside the licensing perimeter, a bifurcation that defines Texas's current crypto-regulatory posture. This bifurcation matters because it means that the same physical kiosk infrastructure now operates under materially different obligations depending on whether the underlying instrument transacted is a qualifying stablecoin or a non-stablecoin token, even though both may be dispensed through the same machine.
Other Developments
Stablecoin issuance remains gated through an issuer-eligibility requirement under Texas Finance Code Chapter 152: licensees may only exchange, custody or transfer stablecoins where the issuer is licensed under the Money Services Modernization Act, is a bank, a California-licensed trust company, or a national bank. Texas relies on money-transmitter licensure, rather than a bespoke digital-asset charter, as its stablecoin-issuer pathway, with entry capital for that pathway typically starting around 100,000 to 300,000 dollars in net worth plus a surety bond, according to practitioner-sourced estimates.
Consumer protection enforcement against crypto-investment fraud continued through a Texas State Securities Board emergency cease-and-desist order against TEXITcoin, MineTXC, Blockchain Mint and their founder, targeting the fraudulent offer and sale of cryptocurrency-mining investment packages, in addition to the kiosk-specific risk-disclosure and transaction-limit protections newly in force under Chapter 161.
A narrow cross-border and law-enforcement-access provision was created within the kiosk framework: Chapter 161 requires kiosk operators to provide limited identifying transaction information, such as a wallet address or transaction hash, to a law-enforcement agency within 72 hours of a written request, without requiring a subpoena or court order for that limited category of information. This provision is narrowly scoped to the kiosk context alone; no general Texas cross-border virtual-currency transfer restriction regime was identified beyond this kiosk-specific law-enforcement-access mechanism.
Cross-Monitor Connections
The Chapter 161 kiosk regime and the Chapter 152 stablecoin-issuer eligibility gate are shared substrate with both the World Payments Monitor and the Financial Integrity Monitor. The World Payments Monitor reads the same kiosk statute as a payments product-innovation and market-development event, and the same stablecoin definition as a licensing-and-market-access matter; this monitor instead reads the kiosk transaction controls and issuer-eligibility gate as crypto-market-structure and consumer-protection features specific to digital-asset activity. The Financial Integrity Monitor separately reads the Chapter 161 blockchain-analytics mandate and transaction controls as AML/CTF and elder-fraud-prevention architecture. None of these readings duplicate the others; they describe the same statutory record from licensing, payments-market and illicit-finance perspectives respectively.
Outlook
The structural gap between the licensed kiosk and stablecoin perimeter and the unlicensed generic crypto-to-crypto exchange perimeter is likely to remain the defining feature of the Texas crypto framework absent a further legislative or supervisory-memorandum change; this gap has been flagged by industry analysts as an enforcement-capacity concern. Continuing Texas State Securities Board enforcement against crypto-investment fraud schemes outside the kiosk framework is a reasonable expectation, given the TEXITcoin action. Practitioner-sourced estimates of stablecoin-pathway entry capital, while not primary-sourced, provide a useful order-of-magnitude benchmark for prospective issuers evaluating the Texas money-transmitter route relative to charters available in other states. This monitor will continue to track whether Texas Department of Banking supervisory guidance addresses the procedural interaction between the state stablecoin pathway and any federal certification framework applicable to stablecoin issuers.
8 of 8 categories
Signal
Density
Selections OR within a group, AND across groups. Press / to search.
Texas does not maintain a bespoke crypto-only license. Money transmission involving virtual currency is regulated through the general Money Services Modernization Act (Finance Code Chapter 152, which repealed and replaced Chapter 151 effective 2023-09-01), administered by the Texas Department of Banking (TX-DOB) via NMLS. Texas Department of Banking Supervisory Memorandum 1037 (revised 2025-01-28) interprets Chapter 152 for virtual currency. A new dedicated registration/licensing layer for virtual-currency kiosks (crypto ATMs) was enacted via SB 1705 (Finance Code Chapter 161, effective 2025-09-01).
Standing sub-brief432 words · last cycle 2026-09-14
Crypto Licensing
Texas crypto licensing this cycle is defined by the interaction of two distinct instruments. Finance Code Chapter 161, created by SB 1705 and effective September 1, 2025, requires virtual currency kiosk operators to register each individual kiosk with the Texas Department of Banking and to obtain prior approval before a kiosk may be activated at a Texas location; this is a location-specific, per-kiosk licensing requirement rather than a single entity-level authorisation, meaning an operator with multiple kiosk locations must obtain approval for each one. This licensing requirement sits alongside Texas Department of Banking Supervisory Memorandum 1037, revised in January 2025, which classifies non-stablecoin centralized virtual currency as falling outside the definition of money under the Texas Finance Code. The practical effect of that classification is that purely crypto-to-crypto exchange activity, where no stablecoin or fiat-denominated instrument is involved, is exempt from money-transmission licensure altogether.
The combined effect of these two instruments is a bifurcated licensing perimeter: kiosk operation is now affirmatively licensed and location-gated, while generic crypto-to-crypto exchange activity conducted outside the kiosk context remains outside licensure entirely. This is not an oversight but a deliberate, if narrow, statutory design choice reflected in Supervisory Memorandum 1037's own classification language, and it creates what this monitor treats as a durable supervisory gap: an entity could operate a crypto-to-crypto exchange business in Texas without any Texas-specific licensing obligation, so long as it avoids stablecoin activity and kiosk deployment, while a kiosk operator dispensing the very same non-stablecoin tokens would be subject to per-location registration, approval and the full suite of Chapter 161 consumer-protection controls. The kiosk-specific licensing model also diverges structurally from a conventional statewide money-transmitter license: because approval attaches to the individual kiosk location rather than to the operating entity as a whole, an operator seeking to scale a kiosk network across Texas faces a per-location compliance burden that does not apply to its non-kiosk crypto-exchange operations under the current supervisory framework.
Outlook
This bifurcated perimeter is likely to persist absent a further legislative expansion of licensing to cover non-kiosk, non-stablecoin exchange activity, or a further revision to Supervisory Memorandum 1037 narrowing the money exemption. Industry analysts have flagged the resulting supervisory gap as an enforcement-capacity issue, and this monitor will continue to track whether the Texas Department of Banking addresses it through further guidance rather than statutory amendment, which would be the lower-friction path available to the Department. Prospective kiosk operators evaluating Texas market entry should expect location-by-location registration timelines to be a material factor in deployment planning, distinct from the entity-level licensing timeline applicable under Chapter 152 more generally.
Periodic update · new data 2026-09-22
Crypto Licensing
Texas's crypto licensing framework tightened materially this cycle with the enactment of Finance Code Chapter 161 (SB 1705), effective September 1, 2025, which requires virtual-currency-kiosk operators to hold a Chapter 152 money-transmission license and to register or obtain prior approval from Texas state authorities before activating any kiosk. This is a primary legislative source confirmed directly from bill text, and it layers a bespoke registration and pre-activation approval step onto the existing general money-transmission license requirement specifically for the kiosk channel.
The broader licensing architecture remains anchored in Chapter 152, the Money Services Modernization Act, which the Texas Department of Banking has interpreted through Supervisory Memorandum 1037 to require a money-transmission license from any digital asset business that receives sovereign-backed, redeemable stablecoins for transmission on behalf of Texas customers. This interpretation is sourced to a licensing-consultancy summary of the regulator's guidance rather than the primary memorandum text itself, and is held at Confirmed confidence on the strength of that secondary corroboration. By contrast, direct peer-to-peer exchange of non-stablecoin virtual currency for sovereign currency is classified by the same regulator guidance as a sale of goods, not money transmission, a distinction held at Probable confidence given its secondary sourcing.
Taken together, the regime is comprehensive and settled at the statutory level, but implementing detail for Chapter 161 is still pending, and the exchange-versus-custody line under SM 1037 requires case-by-case analysis rather than resting on a single bright-line statutory test.
Outlook
The Finance Commission of Texas has not yet finalized implementing rules for Chapter 161's kiosk registration and blockchain-analytics standards; these were not located as finalized administrative rules this cycle, though the statute itself is already in force. Once implementing rules are adopted, expected around 2026-Q4, crypto-ATM operators will face concrete registration, reporting-format and analytics-tooling requirements beyond the statute's current framework-level provisions. The current operative text of Supervisory Memorandum 1037 following its January 2025 revision was not directly retrieved this cycle, leaving the exchange/custody classification line resting on secondary-source corroboration pending primary verification.
1 further periodic run re-emitted the standing brief unchanged and is not shown.
Sources and findings (4)
T1 · Texas Department of BankingTexas Department of Banking — A person or business conducting money transmission involving virtual currency in Texas, including receipt of money or monetary value for stablecoin transactions, must hold a Money Transmission License under Finance Code Chapter 152 and comply with 7 TAC Chapter 33.retrieved M5bindingin force
T1 · Texas Department of BankingTexas Department of Banking — Bitcoin and other non-stablecoin virtual currencies do not meet the Texas Finance Code definitions of currency, money, or monetary value, so exchanging virtual currency for sovereign currency does not by itself trigger Money Transmission or Currency Exchange licensing absent a legislative change.retrieved M4bindingin force
T1 · Texas Department of BankingTexas Department of Banking — A Texas money transmission licensee that qualifies as a 'digital asset service provider' under Finance Code Chapter 160 (serving more than 500 Texas digital-asset customers or holding at least $10 million in customer funds) must file an annual DASP report with the Department not later than the 90th day after the end of its fiscal year.retrieved M4bindingin force
T1 · Texas Department of BankingTexas Department of Banking — The Texas Department of Banking has taken enforcement action against unlicensed virtual-currency kiosk operators (e.g., GPD Holdings LLC dba CoinFlip) for conducting unlicensed money transmission involving stablecoin transactions through crypto kiosks in Texas.retrieved M3bindingin force
Texas classifies virtual currency for money-transmission purposes based on statutory definitions of 'money'/'monetary value' rather than a bespoke token taxonomy. Sovereign-backed, fully-reserved, redeemable stablecoins are treated as money/monetary value; non-stablecoin virtual currencies (e.g., Bitcoin) are not. Per the seed disambiguation, federal SEC/CFTC characterization of a token as a security or commodity governs regardless of Texas MTL status; the Texas State Securities Board (TSSB) has independently pursued securities-law enforcement against certain crypto yield products.
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)
T1 · Texas Department of BankingTexas Department of Banking — Under Supervisory Memorandum 1037, a virtual currency qualifies as 'stablecoin' — and thus as money or monetary value under the Money Services Modernization Act — only if it is pegged to a sovereign currency, fully backed by assets held in reserve, and grants the holder a right to redeem the stablecoin for sovereign currency from the issuer.retrieved M5bindingin force
T1 · Texas Department of BankingTexas Department of Banking — Non-stablecoin virtual currency is not a 'claim' under Texas law: it does not entitle its holder to anything, and there is no entity that must honor its value or exchange it for sovereign currency, distinguishing it from money or monetary value under the MSMA.retrieved M4bindingin force
T4 · CoinDeskCoinDesk — The Texas State Securities Board has pursued enforcement actions (e.g., against Celsius and BlockFi) alleging that certain interest-bearing/staking-like crypto lending products constitute unregistered securities under the Texas Securities Act, operating independently of Department of Banking money-transmission licensing status.retrieved M4bindingin force
Texas has no comprehensive on-chain activity statute; regulation is activity-specific. Bitcoin mining/node operation is governed primarily through energy-grid interconnection and large-load registration rules administered by the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUCT) and grid operator ERCOT, reflecting Texas's status as a major mining hub. Crypto lending/interest-bearing products have been targeted by the Texas State Securities Board as potential unregistered securities. No Texas-specific statute was identified for DeFi/DEX protocol operation, generic staking-as-a-service, or validator operation as distinct categories.
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 — Texas Senate Bill 1929 requires cryptocurrency miners whose energy capacity exceeds 75 megawatts to register with the Public Utility Commission of Texas as large-load operators, with data shared with ERCOT.retrieved M4bindingin force
T4 · The BlockThe Block — In 2026 the Public Utility Commission of Texas approved ERCOT's new 'Batch Zero' framework for allocating grid interconnection capacity to large electricity users, including bitcoin miners, amid a governor-ordered audit of the state's data-center interconnection queue.retrieved M3bindingin force
T4 · CoinDeskCoinDesk — The Texas State Securities Board has alleged that crypto lending/interest-bearing programs formerly offered by firms such as Celsius and BlockFi constitute unregistered securities offerings subject to cease-and-desist and hearing proceedings under Texas securities law.retrieved M3bindingin force
Texas regulates fiat-backed stablecoins by treating them as money/monetary value under the MSMA when they are pegged to a sovereign currency, fully reserve-backed, and redeemable, thereby subjecting stablecoin issuers/transmitters to Money Transmission licensing plus, where thresholds are met, Chapter 160 DASP reserve, disclosure, and audit-attestation obligations. DOB has stated it intends to continue this approach consistent with the federal GENIUS Act.
Standing sub-brief361 words · last cycle 2026-09-14
Stablecoin Regime
The Texas stablecoin regime continues to operate through Finance Code Chapter 152, as established by SB 895 in 2023, rather than through a bespoke digital-asset charter. Under this framework, licensees may only exchange, custody or transfer stablecoins where the issuer of that stablecoin is itself licensed under the Money Services Modernization Act, is a bank, is a California-licensed trust company, or is a national bank. This issuer-eligibility gate functions as a whitelist mechanism: it does not regulate stablecoin issuance directly in the sense of imposing reserve or redemption requirements on the issuer as a matter of Texas law standing alone, but it controls which issuers Texas-licensed entities may lawfully deal with, effectively importing whatever regulatory standard applies to the issuer under its own licensing or chartering regime.
Because Texas relies on money-transmitter licensure as its stablecoin pathway rather than a dedicated stablecoin charter, the entry-cost profile for a Texas stablecoin-issuer pathway resembles that of a conventional money transmitter: practitioner-sourced estimates place typical entry capital in the range of 100,000 to 300,000 dollars in net worth, plus a surety bond, though this figure is not itself a primary-sourced statutory minimum and should be treated as an order-of-magnitude benchmark rather than a precise regulatory threshold. This module intersects directly with the crypto-licensing bifurcation described elsewhere: while non-stablecoin virtual currency exchange is exempt from Texas money-transmission licensure under Supervisory Memorandum 1037, stablecoin activity remains squarely within the licensing perimeter by virtue of the statutory definition treating qualifying stablecoins as money.
An unresolved procedural question, not addressed within this cycle's evidence, is how the Texas state stablecoin pathway interacts with the federal GENIUS Act state-certification review process for issuers under 10 billion dollars, a coordination question that remains open for Texas specifically.
Outlook
Resolution of the state-federal certification interaction is the most significant open question in this module, and this monitor will continue to watch for Texas Department of Banking guidance addressing how the existing Chapter 152 issuer-eligibility gate will coexist with any federal certification pathway. Absent such guidance, Texas-facing stablecoin issuers face residual uncertainty about which compliance track, state money-transmitter licensure, federal certification, or both, will govern their Texas operations going forward.
Periodic update · new data 2026-09-22
Stablecoin Regime
Texas regulates stablecoins through general money-transmission and custody law rather than a bespoke stablecoin statute, and this cycle saw that framework tighten through amendment rather than wholesale replacement. Finance Code §160.004(c), as amended by HB 4233 effective September 1, 2025, now requires digital asset service providers holding custody of stablecoins or other digital assets to allow each customer to view, at least quarterly, an accounting of outstanding liabilities and digital assets held in custody. This is confirmed directly from primary bill text and represents a concrete, dated transparency obligation for custodians.
On classification, Texas Finance Code §152.003(19), as interpreted by the Texas Department of Banking's Supervisory Memorandum 1037, treats sovereign-backed stablecoins carrying redemption rights as "monetary value" under Texas money-services law, which in turn triggers the Chapter 152 money-transmission licensing requirement discussed under Crypto Licensing above. This regulator interpretation is held at Probable confidence, reflecting its secondary sourcing to a licensing-consultancy summary rather than the primary memorandum text. Non-stablecoin virtual currency, such as Bitcoin and Ether, is treated differently and excluded from the "money" or "monetary value" definition, reinforcing that the redemption-right feature of a stablecoin is the operative distinction driving Texas's regulatory treatment.
The overall trajectory this cycle is tightening: the custodial-accounting duty is a new, dated obligation on top of an already-settled classification line, and it applies specifically to the digital-asset custody relationship rather than to trading or transmission generally.
Outlook
The redemption-right treatment under SM 1037 rests on regulator interpretation rather than standalone legislation, and the current operative text of the memorandum following its January 2025 revision was not directly retrieved this cycle. Confirming that text directly, along with monitoring for any statutory codification of the stablecoin/non-stablecoin distinction, would meaningfully firm up confidence in this module for the next cycle. No further custodial-duty changes beyond the HB 4233 amendment were identified this cycle.
1 further periodic run re-emitted the standing brief unchanged and is not shown.
Sources and findings (4)
T1 · Texas Department of BankingTexas Department of Banking — The Texas Department of Banking currently licenses and regulates issuers of fiat-currency-backed stablecoin as money transmitters pursuant to Chapter 152 of the Texas Finance Code, and intends to continue regulating these entities in a manner consistent with the federal GENIUS Act.retrieved M5bindingin force
T1 · Texas Department of BankingTexas Department of Banking — Digital asset service providers regulated under Texas Finance Code Chapter 160 must maintain reserves in an amount sufficient to fulfill all obligations due to their digital-asset customers.retrieved M5bindingin force
T1 · Texas Department of BankingTexas Department of Banking — For a virtual currency to be treated as 'stablecoin' money/monetary value under the MSMA, its issuer must grant holders an explicit or inherent right to redeem the stablecoin for sovereign currency, whether expressly stated in a user agreement or implied by the issuer's buy-back guarantee.retrieved M4bindingin force
T1 · Texas Department of BankingTexas Department of Banking — Chapter 160 digital asset service providers must create a plan allowing each digital-asset customer to view, at least quarterly, an accounting of outstanding liabilities owed to that customer and the digital assets held in custody by the provider, together with an auditor attestation of customer assets held.retrieved M4bindingin force
Consumer protection for crypto activity in Texas is distributed across DOB's MSB/DASP supervisory framework (custody authorization for banks, complaint-handling channels, Chapter 160 disclosure duties) and consumer-education guidance adopted from national model frameworks (CSBS/NASAA). There is no bespoke Texas crypto-consumer-protection statute; protections attach through the MTL/DASP licensing overlay.
Standing sub-brief321 words · last cycle 2026-09-14
Consumer Protection
Texas crypto consumer protection this cycle operates on two distinct tracks. The first is the newly in-force Finance Code Chapter 161 kiosk-specific protections, created by SB 1705 and effective September 1, 2025, which require kiosk operators to provide mandatory risk disclosures warning customers of the volatile and unregulated nature of virtual currency, to cap daily transactions at 3,000 dollars, and to impose a 72-hour hold on first-time-customer transactions. These provisions are explicitly designed around elder-fraud and so-called pig-butchering scam typologies, in which victims are frequently directed to physical kiosks to convert cash into cryptocurrency for onward transfer to fraudulent counterparties; the transaction cap and first-time hold are specifically calibrated to interrupt that conversion step before large sums can be moved.
The second track is case-by-case securities enforcement, evidenced this cycle by the Texas State Securities Board emergency cease-and-desist order against TEXITcoin, MineTXC, Blockchain Mint and their founder, targeting the fraudulent offer and sale of cryptocurrency-mining investment Mining Packages. This action falls outside the kiosk framework entirely: it addresses a direct-to-investor solicitation scheme rather than kiosk-based conversion, and it proceeds under the Texas Securities Act rather than Chapter 161. The coexistence of these two tracks illustrates that Texas consumer protection in the crypto space is bifurcated in a manner parallel to its licensing framework: kiosk-specific protections are now codified and rule-based, while broader crypto-investment consumer protection, including mining-investment and other solicitation-based schemes, remains enforcement-driven rather than governed by a comparable rule-based framework.
Outlook
Continuing Texas State Securities Board enforcement against crypto-investment solicitation schemes outside the kiosk framework is a reasonable expectation, given the TEXITcoin precedent and the absence of any rule-based framework covering that category of activity. On the kiosk side, this monitor will continue to track whether Texas Department of Banking supervisory guidance further specifies how the risk-disclosure and transaction-limit requirements will be examined and enforced in practice as the Chapter 161 regime matures beyond its initial effective date.
Periodic update · new data 2026-09-22
Consumer Protection
Texas consumer protection for crypto activity tightened this cycle through concrete, recently enacted statutory disclosure duties rather than through enforcement action. Under Finance Code Chapter 161 (SB 1705), effective September 1, 2025 and confirmed directly from primary legislative text, virtual-currency-kiosk operators must post mandatory risk disclosures warning customers about the volatile and unregulated nature of virtual currency. This is a point-of-transaction obligation that applies specifically to the physical kiosk channel, which has historically been a lower-friction access point for retail cash-to-crypto conversion and therefore a natural focus for consumer-facing warning requirements.
This disclosure duty sits alongside the custodial-transparency obligation under amended Finance Code §160.004(c) (addressed under Stablecoin Regime), which gives custody customers a recurring, at-least-quarterly view of their holdings and outstanding liabilities. Read together, the two obligations reflect a consistent legislative approach this cycle: layering concrete, dated transparency and warning requirements onto the existing Chapter 152 licensing backbone rather than creating a wholly separate consumer-protection statute for digital assets.
Outlook
No enforcement activity specific to the new kiosk disclosure requirement was identified this cycle, since the requirement itself only took effect September 1, 2025. The next cycle should watch for any Texas Department of Banking guidance clarifying the precise form and placement of the mandatory risk disclosure, and for whether the Finance Commission's pending Chapter 161 implementing rules add further consumer-facing requirements beyond the statutory baseline.
1 further periodic run re-emitted the standing brief unchanged and is not shown.
Sources and findings (3)
T1 · Texas Department of BankingTexas Department of Banking — Texas state-chartered banks and trust companies may provide virtual currency custody services to customers under Finance Code §32.001, provided adequate protocols are in place to manage risks such as private-key security and compliance with applicable law.retrieved M4bindingin force
T1 · Texas Department of BankingTexas Department of Banking — MSMA licensees, including those handling virtual currency, must provide customers with a notice describing how to file a complaint concerning money transmission or currency exchange activity, directing complaints to the Texas Department of Banking.retrieved M3bindingin force
T1 · Texas Department of BankingTexas Department of Banking — The Texas Department of Banking has adopted the CSBS/NASAA Model State Consumer and Investor Guidance on Virtual Currency to support consumer education and outreach on virtual-currency risks.retrieved M2non-binding
No Texas-specific statute or Comptroller guidance on crypto sales/use tax or state income taxation of digital assets was identified in this pass; Texas levies no state personal income tax, so state-level capital gains/income tax categories are structurally inapplicable, and residents remain subject to federal IRS property-tax treatment of crypto transactions, including the new federal Form 1099-DA broker-reporting 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)
T4 · CoinDeskCoinDesk — Beginning with 2025 sales, crypto exchanges operating in the U.S., including those serving Texas residents, must issue IRS Form 1099-DA reporting gross proceeds of digital-asset sales under the federal broker-reporting regime that applies uniformly across all states, including Texas.retrieved M3bindingin force
T1 · Texas Department of BankingTexas Department of Banking — primary source not yet reachedretrieved M1non-bindingour coverage gap, expected to resolve on a re-run
No Texas-specific statute establishing a distinct cross-border transfer regime for virtual currency was identified. Money transmitters conducting virtual-currency business with Texas residents remain subject to federal cross-border and sanctions requirements (FinCEN/OFAC) layered onto the state MTL, rather than a separate state cross-border rule.
Standing sub-brief285 words · last cycle 2026-08-21
Cross-Border Transfer
The only Texas-specific cross-border-transfer-adjacent provision identified this cycle is contained within the Chapter 161 kiosk framework created by SB 1705: kiosk operators must provide limited identifying transaction information, specifically a wallet address or transaction hash, to a law-enforcement agency within 72 hours of a written request, and this limited category of information may be obtained without a subpoena or court order. This provision is narrowly scoped to the virtual-currency-kiosk context alone; it does not establish, and this cycle's evidence base does not identify, any general Texas restriction on cross-border virtual-currency transfers, any transfer-reporting regime analogous to a travel rule, or any broader law-enforcement-access framework applicable to non-kiosk crypto activity.
The practical significance of this provision lies in its evidentiary threshold: by permitting law-enforcement access to a defined, limited data set without requiring a subpoena, Texas has created an expedited investigative pathway specific to kiosk transactions, plausibly reflecting the elder-fraud and scam-conversion typology that the surrounding Chapter 161 provisions, the transaction cap and first-time-customer hold, are also designed to address. Kiosk operators should treat this as a standing operational obligation, requiring the retention and prompt retrievability of wallet-address and transaction-hash data for at least the period during which a written law-enforcement request might reasonably be expected.
Outlook
Because this provision is narrowly scoped to kiosks, any expansion of cross-border or law-enforcement-access obligations to other categories of Texas crypto activity, such as non-kiosk exchanges or custodial wallet providers, would represent a materially new development rather than an extension of the existing kiosk-specific mechanism. This monitor will continue to watch for any such expansion, as well as for guidance clarifying the operational retention and response procedures kiosk operators must follow to meet the 72-hour response window.
No new data since the standing brief. 1 periodic run re-emitted it unchanged.
Sources and findings (1)
T1 · Texas Department of BankingTexas Department of Banking — Texas has not enacted a state-specific restriction on cross-border transfer of virtual currency; at the federal level, regulation of virtual currencies affecting cross-border activity remains varied and uncertain, with Texas MSB/DASP licensees layering federal cross-border and sanctions compliance onto the state licence rather than a distinct state cross-border regime.retrieved M2bindingin force
AML/CFT obligations (KYC/CDD, travel rule, SAR/STR, sanctions screening, record-keeping, risk assessment) for Texas-regulated money services businesses and digital asset service providers are governed by federal BSA/FinCEN requirements layered onto the state MSB licence and are captured by the crypto consumer's aml_ctf FIM subscription rather than this baseline. This module is emitted for structural completeness only.
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 · Texas Department of BankingTexas Department of Banking — no equivalent in this regimeretrieved 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
65.0
aggregator_only_jurisdiction_count
0
manual_override
Editorial metadata
Provenance only. Nothing below gates publication or affects the render.
Editorial metadata for Texas, 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.