The bill inserts a dedicated regulatory architecture into the Corporations Act for “digital tokens”, “digital asset platforms” and “tokenised custody platforms”. It sets out when those facilities count as financial products, creates mandatory platform rules and disclosure (a DAP/TCP Guide and voting policy) for licensed issuers, and gives ASIC power to issue asset‑holding and transactional/settlement standards.
The measure preserves a targeted regulatory perimeter: the Minister can declare selected platforms to be financial markets or clearing and settlement facilities (or exempt them), and the law limits certain platform‑related financial services to constitutionally covered corporations or licenceholders. The bill therefore combines technical, operational rules (custody, settlement, disclosure) with constitutional and market‑structure guardrails that firms, advisers and regulators will need to implement operationally and contractually.
At a Glance
What It Does
Creates statutory definitions for digital tokens, digital asset platforms and tokenised custody platforms; requires AFSL‑holders who issue those platforms to meet ASIC-made assetholding and transactional/settlement standards and to publish platform rules, a client guide (DAP/TCP Guide) and a voting policy; and lets the Minister declare individual platforms to be financial markets/clearing facilities or exempt them.
Who It Affects
Australian financial services licensees that issue or operate crypto platforms, custodians and custodial service providers, custodial staking providers, constitutionally covered corporations (banks and large corporates), and retail clients who acquire platform interests.
Why It Matters
It imposes prescriptive operational and disclosure duties on licensed platform issuers and creates a mechanism by which otherwise non‑financial tokens and platforms can be regulated as markets or clearing facilities — changing compliance, custody and product‑structuring choices for on‑ and off‑chain models.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill starts by defining a digital token as an electronic record that a person can factually control — meaning they can transfer it, exclude others from transferring it, and demonstrate that control. It then distinguishes two kinds of facilities: digital asset platforms (where the operator possesses tokens on behalf of clients) and tokenised custody platforms (where the operator creates one token per underlying non‑monetary asset and holding the token conveys a right to redeem the underlying asset).
Those definitions set the legal baseline for what regulation applies.
For licenceholders, the bill gives ASIC powers to make assetholding standards (covering safeguarding, recordkeeping and use of underlying assets) and transactional and settlement standards (covering execution, settlement methods, matched principal and liquidity arrangements). The platform issuer must adopt platform rules that are contractually binding on clients and disclose settlement methods, whether external liquidity will be used, who bears counterparty and operational risk, and how redeems and deliveries of underlying assets work.
The bill also requires a DAP/TCP Guide and a voting policy before issuing platforms to retail clients, with civil penalties for many failures.On market structure, the Minister can declare a digital asset platform to be a financial market or a clearing and settlement facility for specified classes of tokens — or exempt platforms from being treated as markets — and must consult operators and have regard to stability, competition and regulatory impact, with ASIC/APRA/RBA/AUSTRAC able to advise. The regime also includes carve‑outs and limits tied to Australia’s constitutional division: certain platform‑related services count as financial services only when performed by constitutionally covered corporations or licenceholders using postal/telegraphic/telephonic services, which narrows the domestic perimeter for smaller or offshore operators.The bill clarifies ownership and liability lines: an operator is taken to have done (or failed to do) anything an appointed agent did, even if the agent acted fraudulently.
It creates tailored exemptions — for example for public digital token infrastructure and certain custodial staking arrangements — and sets a staged start: the Act begins 12 months after Royal Assent, with a 6‑month transition during which operators must secure an AFSL condition authorising platform services or cease offering them as licensed services.
The Five Things You Need to Know
ASIC may make assetholding standards requiring money held under platforms (that is not an underlying asset) to be held in trust, and must include options to mitigate the effects of a bank refusing ordinary banking services.
Platform rules are given legal effect as contracts under seal between the licensee and each client and must disclose the settlement method, any use of external liquidity, who bears counterparty/operational risk, and how real‑asset redemption or delivery works.
The Minister can declare a digital asset platform a financial market or clearing and settlement facility (or exempt it) for specified token classes; declarations may be conditional or time‑limited and must follow notice and consult steps with operators and relevant regulators.
The Act treats an operator as legally responsible for anything an appointed agent does (or fails to do) for the platform, even if the agent acted fraudulently or outside authority — creating strict vicarious‑style liability.
Commencement is 12 months after Royal Assent; there is a 6‑month transition in which the person providing a platform service must hold an AFSL condition authorising that service or apply to ASIC — failing to apply means the full regime bites at the end of the transition.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Who controls tokens, and what counts as a platform
The bill defines 'digital token' by factual control (ability to transfer, exclude others and demonstrate that control) and distinguishes digital asset platforms from tokenised custody platforms by how tokens map to underlying assets and whether a single token corresponds to a single real‑world asset. It also amends the general concept of possession so on‑chain factual control, and prescribed regulatory circumstances, determine legal possession. Practically, that forces firms to map on‑chain key and access models to legal consequences for custody, transfer and client rights.
ASIC can set custody, settlement and conduct standards; platform rules become binding contracts
ASIC can make assetholding standards (safeguarding, reconciliation, recordkeeping, money held in trust) and transactional/settlement standards (settlement method, matched principal, liquidity arrangements, monitoring of liquidity providers). The platform rules required of licensees must set eligibility criteria, ongoing client obligations, settlement methods, disclosure about external liquidity and counterparty risk, and deposit/redemption mechanics. Because platform rules operate as contracts under seal, licensees must align corporate constitutions and client onboarding contracts with those rules and be prepared to defend compliance against civil enforcement.
Ministerial power to treat or exempt platforms as markets or clearing facilities
The Minister may, by legislative instrument, declare particular digital asset platforms to be financial markets or clearing and settlement facilities for specified token classes — or exempt them. Declarations can carry conditions and durations and require notice and an opportunity to make submissions from affected operators; ASIC, APRA, the RBA and AUSTRAC may advise. This creates a targeted route to bring non‑financial tokens and tech‑native venues into market/clearing regimes without blanket treatment of all tokens.
Limits on who provides platform‑related financial services and Ministerial prohibitions
The bill narrows the financial‑services perimeter for platforms that are 'financial products' only because of the new digital‑asset provisions: several services count as a financial service only if provided by, or on behalf of, a constitutionally covered corporation. Separately, the Minister can prohibit particular financial products being held through specified platforms. Together these tools let government target market‑structure risks (concentrations, consumer detriment) but also introduce a constitutional filter that can advantage large incumbents.
New disclosure and governance obligations for retail issuance
Before issuing a platform to a retail client, a licensee must give a DAP/TCP Guide containing the information a retail investor reasonably needs to decide to join a platform (nature of the platform, identities and responsibilities of issuer and custodians, fees, differences in client vs direct ownership rights, complaint pathways). Licensees must also have and administer a voting policy explaining how governance or voting rights attached to underlying assets will be exercised, whether clients can instruct votes, and how instructions are processed and communicated. Licensees must provide copies of communications about related assets on request. Many of these disclosure duties are civil penalty offences.
Public infrastructure, custodial staking and wrapped tokens
The bill defines 'public digital token infrastructure' (an open, non‑permissioned protocols test) and creates a statutory concept of 'custodial staking arrangements' with required benefit and reward pass‑throughs. It also allows regulators to disregard redemption rights when deciding whether wrapped tokens are financial products, subject to exceptions. These carve‑outs recognise technical differences between public, decentralised systems and issuer‑controlled platforms, while still allowing regulatory oversight through rules or regulations.
Operators are legally responsible for agents’ acts — even fraudulent ones
If an operator appoints agents to carry out authorised platform functions, the operator is taken to have done anything the agent did (or failed to do) for purposes such as liability to clients, compliance with Act obligations, and adherence to platform rules and standards — regardless of fraud or exceeding authority. That shifts operational risk onto platform issuers and will affect due diligence, contracting with subcontractors, insurance and internal controls.
12‑month commencement, six‑month AFSL transition and application limits
The Act commences 12 months after Royal Assent. For six months after commencement responsible persons providing licensed platform services may rely on a temporary delay while they apply for an AFSL or a licence condition authorising the service; ASIC can decide such applications during the transition. The transitional rules also limit retroactive application where the amendments would acquire property otherwise than on just terms, and allow regulations for further transitional adjustments.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Finance across all five countries.
Explore Finance in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Retail clients on licensed platforms — they gain mandatory pre‑issuance information (DAP/TCP Guide), a platform voting policy and rights to receive communications about underlying assets, improving transparency about custody, fees, voting and redemption.
- Licensed AFSL holders and incumbent custodians — the bill clarifies regulatory expectations (assetholding and settlement standards, platform rule content) and gives a pathway to offer tokenised products within Australia’s financial services framework, reducing legal uncertainty for regulated providers.
- Regulators and policymakers (ASIC, APRA, RBA, AUSTRAC) — receive explicit statutory tools (standards, declarations, prohibitions, adviser roles) to tailor oversight by platform class and token type and to coordinate cross‑agency advice.
- Clients using custodial staking arrangements — the bill requires pass‑through of staking rewards and protections about fees and early return options, which can make pooled staking services more predictable for retail participants.
- Operators that meet the constitutionally covered corporation test — they can provide a broader set of financial services related to platforms that others cannot, preserving market positions for large Australian corporates and banks.
Who Bears the Cost
- Non‑AFSL platform operators and startups — obtaining an AFSL or operating through a licensed entity imposes compliance costs, ongoing recordkeeping, custodial arrangements and potential restructuring of technical custody models to match legal possession.
- Financial services licensees issuing platforms — must implement assetholding and settlement standards, maintain platform rules as binding contracts, create DAP/TCP Guides and voting policies, and monitor external liquidity providers, increasing operational and legal overhead.
- Overseas or small platform operators that are not constitutionally covered — face limits on offering platform‑related financial services into Australia and may be excluded from market access unless they restructure under a covered corporation or local licence.
- Operators of public digital token infrastructure — while some carve‑outs exist, uncertainty about which protocols meet the statutory test will require legal analysis and may impose transitional compliance costs.
- ASIC and other regulators — must design proportionate standards, manage declarations and exemptions, and supervise a technically complex sector, which will require extra resources and new technical/regulatory capabilities.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is protecting Australian retail clients and market integrity without killing viable, low‑cost crypto business models: the bill tightens legal custody, disclosure and issuer liability to reduce consumer and operational risk, but those same obligations raise compliance and capital costs that may entrench large incumbents, reduce competition and encourage offshore routing of token activity.
The bill is a hybrid of technical rule‑making and constitutional perimeter management, and that mix creates implementation frictions. Translating 'factual control' and on‑chain key management into the statutory notion of possession will force firms to align cryptographic access models with legal custody arrangements, trust accounting and client disclosure.
The operator‑is‑responsible rule for agents (including fraud) increases legal certainty for clients but concentrates commercial risk with licensees, who will need stronger vendor management, contractual protections and insurance — and those mitigation costs may reduce market entrants.
Ministerial declaration and prohibition powers are deliberately flexible — they let government designate particular platforms as markets or clear them from market regulation — but the instrumentality of those powers raises predictability concerns. Operators must navigate a twin track: technical standards to be set by ASIC where proportionality is required, and political or economic judgments by the Minister about when a platform should be treated as a market or exempt.
Cross‑border liquidity sourcing and reliance on non‑Australian platforms are expressly permitted in the transactional standards, but that permission will complicate supervision and enforcement when execution spans jurisdictions. Finally, the public‑infrastructure carve‑outs and the ability to disregard redemption rights for wrapped tokens are sensible, but they leave open when a regulator will treat a wrapped token as a financial product — a line that will need to be drawn in regulation or litigation.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.