The collapse of major crypto exchanges in 2022—most notably FTX—sent shockwaves across the global financial landscape. While the fallout continues, a critical lesson has emerged: protecting investors from misuse of funds, excessive leverage, and opaque operations by centralized crypto platforms requires targeted legislation. Traditional financial regulations such as anti-money laundering (AML) laws or securities acts are insufficient on their own. To truly safeguard users, governments must enact new legal frameworks that mandate transparency, accountability, and robust governance standards for centralized crypto service providers.
👉 Discover how regulatory clarity can protect your digital assets today.
The Need for Targeted Crypto Legislation
Centralized cryptocurrency exchanges and financial platforms operate much like traditional financial institutions—they hold user funds, facilitate trades, and often lend or stake assets. This creates inherent agency risks and information asymmetry between operators and users. Without specific rules governing capital reserves, auditing practices, and custodial responsibilities, consumers remain vulnerable.
However, regulation must be smart and focused. Overly broad rules could inadvertently stifle innovation in decentralized technologies that form the backbone of the blockchain ecosystem. Distributed ledger technology (DLT) enables peer-to-peer transactions, censorship resistance, and enhanced privacy. It powers decentralized finance (DeFi), non-fungible tokens (NFTs), identity verification systems, and more. These applications often rely on token issuance or trading for funding, incentives, or network security—especially proof-of-stake (PoS) blockchains that depend on staking mechanisms.
Thus, while centralized players require strict oversight due to their custodial nature and systemic risk, decentralized protocols function differently. Many are non-custodial, transparent via on-chain data, and governed by distributed consensus. Regulating them under the same framework as centralized entities may hinder technological progress.
Learning from Global Regulatory Models
Since the 2017 initial coin offering (ICO) boom brought cryptocurrencies into public view, many countries have struggled to define clear regulatory paths. In this region, virtual asset platforms have been brought under AML frameworks, and financial regulators have issued guidance on whether certain tokens qualify as securities. Yet, comprehensive legislation targeting crypto exchanges and centralized service providers remains absent.
Meanwhile, international developments offer valuable blueprints—particularly the European Union’s Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) regulation. After three years of consultation among EU institutions and stakeholders, MiCA was finalized in October 2022 and is set for phased implementation starting in 2024.
MiCA classifies crypto assets into categories such as asset-referenced tokens, e-money tokens, and utility tokens, with regulatory obligations centered on issuers and centralized service providers. Crucially, it excludes fully decentralized services—those without intermediaries or identifiable issuers—from its scope. For these emerging decentralized models, including some NFTs and DeFi protocols, the EU Commission is tasked with delivering future assessments and policy recommendations.
This cautious, tiered approach reflects a mature understanding: regulators don’t need to control everything at once. By focusing first on high-risk centralized actors, the EU protects consumers without crushing innovation.
Contrasting Approaches: Enforcement vs. Clarity
Across the Atlantic, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), under Chair Gary Gensler, has taken a markedly different path—what many call “regulation by enforcement.” Instead of issuing clear rules, the SEC applies decades-old securities doctrines like the Howey Test to various crypto projects, selectively pursuing lawsuits or settlements.
A recent example is the SEC’s action against Kraken, forcing the exchange to shut down its Ethereum staking-as-a-service offering. But the ruling left critical questions unanswered: Does the SEC oppose only custodial staking services, or does it also target non-custodial, decentralized staking protocols like Lido? Without clear guidelines, developers and businesses face uncertainty, chilling investment and development.
Even within the SEC, dissent exists. Commissioner Hester M. Peirce criticized the approach as inefficient and unfair, stating that forcing companies to close rather than providing compliant pathways reflects regulatory laziness. Her words resonate with innovators worldwide who seek clarity—not confrontation.
A Path Forward for Effective Regulation
As the primary regulator of fintech and digital assets in this region, the financial authority has repeatedly emphasized its intent to study international models and introduce balanced regulations. Now is the time to act decisively—and wisely.
👉 See how compliant platforms are shaping the future of digital finance.
The priority should be clear: focus initial regulatory efforts on centralized crypto service providers and token issuers that pose tangible risks to investors. These include exchanges, custodial wallets, lending platforms, and staking services where user funds are controlled by third parties.
Key regulatory measures should include:
- Mandatory regular audits by independent firms
- Public disclosure of reserve holdings and proof-of-reserves
- Capital adequacy requirements
- Clear separation between customer assets and company funds
- Licensing regimes with strict entry criteria
At the same time, regulators must actively engage with the decentralized ecosystem. Rather than imposing blanket rules, they should monitor developments in DeFi, NFTs, DAOs, and blockchain infrastructure. Pilot programs, regulatory sandboxes, and ongoing dialogue with developers can help shape proportionate policies that protect users while preserving innovation.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Q: Why regulate centralized crypto services first?
A: Because they control user funds, create information asymmetry, and pose higher risks of fraud or insolvency—similar to traditional financial institutions.
Q: Are decentralized protocols completely unregulated under MiCA?
A: Not necessarily. While fully decentralized systems are excluded from direct rules now, the EU mandates future evaluation to determine if and how they should be regulated.
Q: Can staking be both centralized and decentralized?
A: Yes. Centralized staking involves third-party custody (e.g., exchanges offering staking rewards), while decentralized staking uses non-custodial protocols (e.g., Lido or Rocket Pool), where users retain control.
Q: What is “regulation by enforcement”?
A: It refers to using litigation instead of rulemaking to define compliance—commonly criticized for creating uncertainty and discouraging innovation.
Q: How can regulators support innovation while ensuring safety?
A: Through targeted rules for high-risk entities, regulatory sandboxes, public consultations, and phased implementation based on evidence and impact assessment.
Q: Is it possible to prevent another FTX-like collapse?
A: Yes—with mandatory transparency (like proof-of-reserves), segregated asset management, licensing oversight, and real-time monitoring of large centralized platforms.
By following the EU’s example—focusing on centralized risks while allowing space for decentralized experimentation—regulators can build trust in digital markets without smothering progress. The goal isn’t to stop innovation; it’s to make it safer for everyone.
👉 Explore secure, compliant crypto services built for the future.