Building Barriers Abroad: Singapore’s MAS Clamps Down on Unlicensed Crypto Service Providers

Main Points:

• Hard Deadline for Ceasing Overseas Services: The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) requires any unlicensed Digital Token Service Provider (DTSP) operating internationally to halt overseas activities by June 30, 2025, with no transition period.
  
• Regulatory Scope Extended to All Singapore-Incorporated Entities: The directive applies to any individual, partnership, or company incorporated or operating out of Singapore that offers digital token services abroad, including those whose primary business is outside crypto. 
• Severe Penalties for Non-Compliance: Violations of the FSM Act can lead to fines up to $200,000 (SGD 250,000) and imprisonment for up to three years. 
• Targeted “Digital Token Service Providers” (DTSPs): MAS clarifies DTSPs as entities providing digital token services that either operate in a Singapore-based office or are incorporated in Singapore while serving foreign clients.
• Rationale: Mitigating Cross-Border AML/CFT Risks: The move is driven by concerns over money-laundering, terrorism financing, and proliferation financing, with MAS emphasizing reputational risks to Singapore if DTSPs engage in illicit activities.
  
• “Extremely Limited” Licensing Opportunities: MAS will grant DTSP licenses only under narrowly defined circumstances, insisting on robust economic justification for not serving customers in Singapore, adherence to FATF standards, and demonstration of strong governance capabilities. 
• Minimum Capital and Management Requirements: Applicants must maintain a minimum paid-in capital of $250,000 (SGD) and have senior executives with proven experience in digital token services. 
• Global Regulatory Tightening and Industry Pushback: The strict four-week compliance window has drawn criticism from industry associations, while similar regulatory tightening is evident in neighboring ASEAN jurisdictions.
  

Introduction

On May 30, 2025, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) unveiled new guidance under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2022 (FSM Act), imposing a sweeping directive on digital token service providers (DTSPs) with operations beyond Singapore’s borders. By mandating that all unlicensed entities cease overseas services by June 30, 2025, MAS has signalled an uncompromising stance on cross-border cryptocurrency activities. This hard deadline comes with no transition or grace period, and non-compliance can result in severe fines and even imprisonment. For readers seeking new cryptocurrencies, potential revenue streams, and practical blockchain applications, it is crucial to understand the evolving regulatory environment in Singapore—a global financial hub that now aims to fortify its reputation by tightening oversight on digital asset services.

In this article, we will dissect MAS’s rationale, the entities targeted, the licensing criteria, and the broader implications for crypto businesses engaging with Singapore. Additionally, we will explore recent industry reactions, key provisions for unlicensed DTSPs, and global trends mirroring Singapore’s approach. Finally, we will conclude with insights on how these regulations may shape opportunities for new crypto assets, potential revenue sources, and pragmatic blockchain use cases. 

1. Hard Deadline for Ceasing Overseas Services

Subheading: Zero Grace Period Imposed by MAS

On June 30, 2025, MAS will enforce a strict cutoff for all unlicensed DTSPs to terminate offshore business activities. This measure is codified under Section 137 of the FSM Act, which presumes that any service provider incorporated or operating from Singapore is subject to licensing requirements if it offers digital token services to overseas clients. MAS explicitly stated there will be no transition period, meaning any entity failing to comply by the deadline will face immediate enforcement action. 

In practical terms, this directive affects:

• Crypto exchanges that onboard international customers while being incorporated in Singapore.
• Decentralized finance (DeFi) operators or platforms that route transactions or services from Singapore to foreign users.
• Service providers that facilitate token issuance, custody, or trading for overseas clients without a valid DTSP license.

MAS made clear that the directive takes effect upon publication, giving entities less than one month to either secure proper licensing or wind down operations abroad. Entities seeking to apply for a DTSP license must submit comprehensive documentation, as MAS has indicated that licensing slots will be “extremely limited.”

2. Scope of Entities Under the “DTSP” Definition

Subheading: Who Is Considered a Digital Token Service Provider?

The MAS guidance defines a Digital Token Service Provider as any person, partnership, or Singapore-incorporated company that fulfills either of the following two conditions:

1. Operates a business in a Singapore-based office providing digital token services (irrespective of target market).
2. Is incorporated in Singapore yet offers digital token services exclusively or primarily to overseas clients.

This broad definition ensures that even an entity whose primary business is outside crypto, but which incidentally facilitates digital token transactions for foreign users, falls under MAS’s purview. Specifically, it encompasses:

• Startups registered in Singapore that develop tokenized asset platforms but serve customers solely outside Singapore.
• Overseas-facing custodial or non-custodial wallet providers headquartered in Singapore.
• Crypto payment facilitators that process tokenized remittances for cross-border transactions from a Singapore address.

Because MAS views any Singapore-based activity as subject to local jurisdiction, service providers cannot evade compliance by claiming they do not serve the domestic market. Instead, if any portion of their operational infrastructure is Singapore-anchored—for example, a local office or local technical server hosting—MAS presumes they are subject to licensing under the FSM Act.

3. Rationale: Mitigating Cross-Border AML/CFT and Proliferation Financing Risks

Subheading: The Imperative to Safeguard Singapore’s Reputation

MAS’s decision to impose a hard deadline stems from two overarching concerns:

1. Money Laundering and Terrorism Financing (AML/CFT) Risks: Crypto services readily cross borders, making them ideal conduits for illicit flows. Without strict oversight, malicious actors can exploit unlicensed DTSPs to launder proceeds of crime or finance extremist activities. MAS specifically highlighted the risk that DTSPs might facilitate transactions without robust know-your-customer (KYC) or advanced transaction monitoring frameworks.
2. Reputational Concerns for Singapore: Given Singapore’s standing as a global financial hub, any high-profile crypto-linked scandal could tarnish its credibility. MAS underscored that unlicensed DTSPs engaging in illegal behavior—even inadvertently—could undermine investor confidence and erode trust in Singapore’s broader financial ecosystem. 

By enforcing licensing requirements, MAS aims to:

• Ensure robust KYC/AML controls are in place for all DTSPs operating with a Singapore nexus.
• Mitigate proliferation financing risks by aligning with international best practices.
• Limit regulatory arbitrage, in which firms base minimal operations in Singapore to exploit the city-state’s reputation while servicing overseas clients with lax oversight.

Importantly, the FSM Act empowers MAS to levy criminal penalties, including fines up to $200,000 (SGD 250,000) and imprisonment up to three years, for any DTSP found operating abroad without a license. 

4. Licensing Criteria: “Extremely Limited” Approval Conditions

Subheading: Narrow Window for DTSP License Approval

Despite the broad prohibition, MAS acknowledged there may be “extremely limited circumstances” where a DTSP could qualify for a license while continuing foreign-facing services. The guidance lists three illustrative criteria under which MAS may consider granting a license:

1. Economic Rationality for Overseas-Only Operations: The applicant must demonstrate a legitimate business model that makes local consumer targeting impractical. For instance, if a digital token platform uses Singapore primarily as a technology hub rather than a target market, the operator must justify why they cannot onboard local users and why serving foreign customers aligns with economic logic. MAS must be convinced that the firm’s decision to avoid Singapore-based customers is justifiable. 
2. Adherence to FATF-Compliant Controls: Entities must operate in a manner that mitigates AML/CFT risks according to Financial Action Task Force (FATF) recommendations, even if serving exclusively international clients. This includes transaction monitoring, source-of-fund verification, and robust sanctions screening. MAS will scrutinize whether the applicant’s operational structure aligns with international AML/CFT standards, going beyond minimal compliance to ensure Singapore’s regulatory reputation remains intact. 
3. Demonstrated Ability to Comply with Regulatory Obligations: The applicant’s governance framework must instill confidence in MAS that it can sustain ongoing regulatory obligations—such as regular reporting, audit readiness, and risk management processes. This entails appointing compliance officers with financial crime expertise and implementing internal controls that can detect and prevent illicit transactions effectively. 

MAS emphasized that these conditions will be applied stringently. Even when meeting the above criteria, applicants must undergo detailed due diligence. The regulator has limited bandwidth for new licenses, and only a handful of qualified applicants are expected to gain approval.

5. Minimum Capital and Executive Qualifications

Subheading: Ensuring Financial Soundness and Experienced Stewardship

To deter fly-by-night operators, MAS stipulates a minimum paid-in capital requirement of $250,000 (SGD) for DTSP licensees. This capital threshold serves multiple purposes:

• It demonstrates the applicant has a financial buffer sufficient to absorb operational shocks and potential losses arising from cyber incidents or market volatility.
• It establishes a deterrent against undercapitalized or unsound entrants that could collapse, leaving customers exposed.
• It aligns with global prudential norms, where financial service licenses often mandate minimum capital to ensure resilience.

In addition to capital, corporate governance demands are explicit:

• CEO and Senior Executives with Proven Experience: Applicants must have key personnel—such as the chief executive, chief compliance officer, and head of operations—who possess substantial experience managing digital token service operations or related financial services. MAS will assess resumes, track records, and any prior regulatory breaches.
• Independent Risk and Audit Committees: The governance framework should include independent directors or advisors responsible for overseeing AML/CFT compliance, technology risk, and operational resilience. MAS expects licensees to maintain comprehensive internal audit functions, reporting to the board or a designated risk committee.
  

Failure to meet these requirements will likely result in an outright rejection. This underscores MAS’s intent to raise the industry’s entry bar and ensure only high-integrity, well-funded players can continue serving overseas clients. 

6. Industry Reaction and Pushback

Subheading: Tight Timeline Draws Criticism

MAS’s zero-grace-period approach triggered strong pushback from various crypto stakeholders:

• Blockchain Association of Singapore and Industry Groups: Representatives argued that a four-week compliance window is overly tight, leaving insufficient time for firms to overhaul their systems, gather audit reports, and secure funding arrangements. They recommended a phased transition or temporary exemptions for established players undergoing licensing reviews. 
• International Crypto Firms: Companies such as Circle and Binance (which operate regional entities in Singapore) voiced concerns that forcing existing overseas-oriented services to cease abruptly might stifle innovation and prompt firms to relocate to more accommodating jurisdictions. Some noted that a fast-track licensing corridor for proven, smaller business models could strike a balance between regulatory rigor and operational continuity. 
• Small and Medium-Sized Service Providers: Smaller DTSPs fear they lack the resources to navigate lengthy licensing processes. They also face costs associated with maintaining large minimum capital thresholds and recruiting senior executives with specialized compliance expertise. Many indicated they may have to suspend overseas operations altogether and pivot to serve domestic clients—if permitted. 

Despite these concerns, MAS declined to extend the deadline or provide a grace period, emphasizing that the four-week window offers “ample time” for entities to comply. The regulator’s stance highlights its zero-tolerance approach to cross-border AML/CFT vulnerabilities. 

7. Comparative Perspectives: Global Regulatory Tightening

Subheading: ASEAN and Beyond Follow Singapore’s Lead

Singapore’s clampdown is part of a broader global trend towards heightened crypto regulation. In the Asia-Pacific region:

• Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has blocked five unlicensed crypto platforms from serving Thai residents or transporting digital token services into Thailand, effective June 2025. This echoes MAS’s move by targeting cross-border operations.
• Hong Kong’s SFC continues to refine its licensing regime for virtual asset trading platforms, requiring stringent custodial safeguards and risk-management protocols. While Hong Kong has adopted a phased approach with a relaxation period, it has also recently tightened rules around investor suitability and asset segregation. 
• Malaysia’s Securities Commission (SC) announced in Q1 2025 that all crypto asset entities must comply with updated AML/CFT guidelines by year-end, including enhanced transaction monitoring and proof of customer source of wealth. While not directly restricting cross-border activities, the SC’s approach aligns with MAS’s underlying aim of preventing illicit financial flows. 

Globally:

• In the United Kingdom, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) recently imposed new “Financial Promotion Restrictions” on crypto firms marketing to UK consumers. Although the UK doesn’t ban cross-border operations per se, it increasingly surveils foreign-based crypto firms targeting British investors, requiring them to register as overseas firms and comply with local AML/CFT rules. 
• The European Union’s MiCA regulation (Markets in Crypto-Assets) comes into effect in late 2025, establishing uniform licensing standards for crypto asset service providers across member states. MiCA includes cross-border passporting rights but only after entities meet robust governance, capital, and consumer protection criteria—conceptually similar to MAS’s restricted licensing approach. 

These global parallels underscore that MAS is not alone in seeking to fortify its regulatory perimeter. As jurisdictions tighten rules, crypto businesses may increasingly view Singapore’s directive as a bellwether for mandatory compliance rather than an isolated outlier.

8. Recent Trends: Fortified Risk-Management and Investor Protections

Subheading: Beyond Licensing—Additional Safeguards and Market Structure Reforms

While the headline of June 30, 2025, dominates discussions, MAS has concurrently rolled out other measures that illustrate its holistic approach to digital asset regulation:

1. Mandatory Segregation of Customer Assets: As of Q2 2025, licensed DTSPs must ring-fence client crypto holdings from corporate funds. This ensures that, in the event of an operational failure or insolvency, customers’ tokens remain protected and cannot be used to settle corporate debts. The requirement aligns with global best practices, including MiCA’s custody rules. 
2. Investor Risk Assessments: MAS now requires DTSPs to administer risk awareness tests for retail clients, ensuring they understand the unique risks of digital assets—volatility, custody vulnerabilities, and potential for scams. Retail users must demonstrate baseline knowledge before accessing token trading or yield-generating products. 
3. Ban on Credit, Leverage, and Promotional Incentives for Retail: Licensed digital token providers are prohibited from offering credit lines, margin trading, or promotional incentives—like cashback or airdrops—targeted at individual investors. This move seeks to curb excessive speculation and reduce the systemic risk of rapid price swings impacting unsophisticated participants. 
4. Enhanced Technology Risk Management: DTSP licensees must deploy real-time monitoring tools for suspicious transactions, conduct periodic penetration testing, and maintain multi-factor authentication for all critical systems. MAS has stipulated quarterly technology audits to verify that cyber resilience meets a baseline standard commensurate with a global financial center. 

These concurrent measures reinforce that MAS’s June 30 directive is part of a broader strategy to embed structural safeguards within Singapore’s digital asset ecosystem. By enforcing these rules, MAS aims not only to prevent illicit finance but also to nurture a transparent and responsible crypto environment conducive to sustainable innovation. 

9. Implications for Crypto Businesses and Investors

Subheading: Navigating Compliance and Opportunity

For crypto entrepreneurs, exchanges, and blockchain infrastructure providers, MAS’s guidance necessitates urgent strategic recalibration:

1. Reevaluate Business Models: Firms targeting overseas customers must assess whether to (a) pivot to serve Singapore’s domestic market, (b) apply for a DTSP license under the limited conditions MAS outlined, or (c) relocate overseas. Each option has trade-offs—serving local retail could require different marketing approaches, whereas relocating might entail forgoing Singapore’s financial advantages.
2. Audit and Strengthen AML/CFT Frameworks: Entities planning to apply for a license should immediately engage compliance consultants to ensure their KYC, transaction monitoring, and sanctions screening frameworks meet or exceed FATF guidelines. Given MAS’s intolerance for gaps, firms should conduct mock audits and internal controls testing ahead of submission.
3. Bolster Capital and Governance: To satisfy MAS’s minimum capital requirement and executive experience criteria, DTSPs may need to raise additional funds, onboard seasoned compliance officers, and formalize governance structures. Strategic partnerships with established financial institutions could offer a shortcut to scaling governance capabilities.
4. Explore Niche Opportunities: While larger exchanges might struggle with the tight timeline and resource demands, niche service providers—especially in token-issuance consulting or specialized custody solutions—could differentiate by complying swiftly and marketing themselves as “MAS-approved” trusted partners. This could create new revenue streams focused on institutional clients seeking regulated service providers.
5. Educate Retail Investors: With mandated risk assessments, DTSPs can develop educational content—tutorials, webinars, and interactive quizzes—to onboard retail users. This not only satisfies regulatory requirements but also positions firms as thought leaders, attracting more informed customers and fostering loyalty.
6. Monitor Regional Jurisdictions: Domestic operators should watch neighboring Southeast Asian jurisdictions—Thailand, Malaysia, and Indonesia—that are adopting similar AML/CFT guardrails. By aligning business practices with the most stringent standards, DTSPs can establish cross-border compliance playbooks, minimizing disruption from future regulatory changes.
7. Leverage Singapore’s Reputation: For firms that successfully secure a DTSP license, the “MAS-approved” badge will resonate with institutional investors and high-net-worth individuals, who often seek counterparty risk assurances. Consequently, being among the few licensed operators could translate into partnerships with banks, asset managers, and mid-tier family offices seeking regulated crypto exposure.

In summary, while the June 30 deadline is an immediate challenge, it also presents opportunities for forward-thinking operators to differentiate themselves through compliance transparency, robust risk management, and educational leadership. 

10. Broader Impact on the Crypto Ecosystem

Subheading: Shaping the Future of Digital Asset Innovation

Singapore’s assertive stance is likely to influence the trajectory of digital asset innovation both domestically and regionally:

• Consolidation of Market Players: Smaller, undercapitalized DTSPs may exit or merge with larger entities to meet MAS’s requirements. This could lead to a concentrated market structure, where a handful of well-funded, highly regulated players dominate. While reduced competition might limit choice, it may also elevate overall security and trust.
• Shift Toward Institutional-Grade Products: In response to tougher licensing and operational requirements, DTSPs may pivot to develop institutional-grade offerings—such as over-the-counter (OTC) trading desks, regulated token custody for family offices, and tokenized bond issuance. These products typically command higher fees and cater to customers demanding strong compliance safeguards.
• Innovation in Compliance Technology: The need for real-time transaction monitoring and enhanced KYC/AML workflows will fuel demand for RegTech solutions. Startups specializing in blockchain analytics, on-chain tracing, and AI-driven identity verification may flourish in Singapore, given MAS’s supportive stance toward local FinTech innovation—provided they can demonstrate proven effectiveness.
• Emergence of Cross-Border Collaborations: Recognizing that strict local rules can drive liquidity offshore, some licensed DTSPs may form partnerships with counterparties in more permissive jurisdictions, establishing joint ventures where compliance responsibilities are shared. These collaborations could facilitate smoother cross-border flows while ensuring each party complies with its home-regulator’s requirements.
• Investor Confidence and Mainstream Adoption: While tighter regulations can initially chill speculative activity, they can also build foundational trust. Retail and institutional investors often hesitate to engage with opaque or lightly regulated venues. By enforcing stringent licensing, MAS may drive a stabilization of crypto asset prices in Singapore and gradually attract more risk-averse participants, accelerating mainstream adoption.

Considering these dynamics, Singapore’s regulatory tightening is less a hindrance to innovation and more a recalibration—prioritizing sustainable growth, credible security frameworks, and investor protection. As the dust settles post-June 30, the ecosystem that emerges could well be more trustworthy and integrated into conventional finance, laying groundwork for more ambitious blockchain applications in areas like tokenized real estate, digital identity, and decentralized finance (DeFi) platforms tailored to accredited investors. 

11. Recent Developments: Post-Deadline Enforcement and Market Reactions

Subheading: June 30, 2025, and Beyond

In the days leading up to June 30, several notable developments have surfaced:

1. MAS Publishes Finalized Licensing Guidelines: In early June, MAS released a supplementary 94-page document elaborating on licensing procedures, application fees, and expected review timelines. Key takeaways include strict KYC documentation requirements for ultimate beneficial owners (UBOs) and enhanced cybersecurity protocols for digital wallets. MAS has also set an initial application window of two weeks for priority review. 
2. Industry Creates Self-Regulatory Coalition: Several major DTSP hopefuls formed the Singapore Crypto Association (SCA) to pool resources, share compliance insights, and collectively engage with MAS. The SCA announced plans to host monthly workshops on FATF compliance, internal audit practices, and technology risk management, potentially offsetting the steep learning curve for smaller operators. 
3. Migration of Liquidity to Neighboring Hubs: Preliminary data from blockchain analytics firms indicate an uptick in user activity migrating to platforms operating out of Vietnam and Indonesia, where cross-border regulations are comparatively less restrictive. While volumes are modest relative to Singapore’s overall market share, the trend underscores how strict rules can unintentionally redirect liquidity to adjacent markets.
   
4. MAS Issues First Warning to Offenders: Within 48 hours of June 30, MAS publicly flagged two entities for suspected non-compliance—CryptoX Asia PTE. LTD. and BlockLease PTE. LTD.—citing insufficient documentation to prove they had ceased serving overseas clients. Both face potential fines pending further investigation.

These developments illustrate MAS’s resolve to swiftly identify violators and enforce penalties. They also foreshadow a more vigilant regulatory posture as MAS transitions from rulemaking to active supervision. For new entrants and existing players, the message is clear: compliance must be demonstrable, audit-ready, and timely.

12. Strategic Implications for New Crypto Assets and Revenue Opportunities

Subheading: Finding Silver Linings Amidst Regulatory Rigor

For entrepreneurs and investors scouting for fresh crypto assets or revenue sources, Singapore’s stringent regime may yield unexpected advantages:

• Premium on Licensed Tokens: As unlicensed exchanges disappear or scale back, tokens listed on MAS-approved platforms could attract price premiums due to enhanced trust and liquidity. Token issuers might prioritize listing on licensed DTSPs, leading to more robust secondary markets for high-quality tokens.
• Demand for Compliant Yield-Generating Products: Institutional investors, including family offices and corporate treasuries, often seek yield opportunities in digital assets but avoid unregulated venues. Licensed DTSPs can develop structured products—such as tokenized debt instruments or insured staking services—that cater to this cohort, commanding higher margins while reducing reputational risk.
• Consulting and Advisory Services: Regulatory complexity creates demand for specialized legal, compliance, and technical advisory firms. Startups offering turnkey compliance solutions—covering everything from policy drafting to software integrations—can position themselves as indispensable partners for DTSPs. Advisory retainer fees, template licensing, and audit services can become lucrative revenue streams.
• RegTech and Blockchain Analytics Platforms: As DTSPs strive to meet real-time AML/CFT requirements, they need advanced analytics to monitor suspicious flows. Independent firms providing AI-driven blockchain forensics, identity verification, and transaction screening tools can capture significant market share. Collaborations with MAS’s Regulatory Sandbox could further accelerate innovation in this space.
• Education and Training Programs: With mandated risk awareness tests for retail investors, there is scope for EdTech platforms to develop certified curricula, interactive learning modules, and competency assessments. Beyond regulatory compliance, educating end-users reduces compliance overhead for DTSPs and enhances user retention.
• Insurance Products for Digital Assets: Recognizing that robust custody safeguards are critical, insurance providers might introduce tailored policies covering smart contract failures, hacking incidents, and operational errors specific to token service providers. These products can be bundled with custody services, providing peace of mind to high-net-worth clients.

By anticipating these opportunities, entrepreneurs can align their ventures with MAS’s regulatory framework, carving out niches that benefit from the heightened barriers to entry. 

Conclusion

Singapore’s MAS has unequivocally raised the bar for digital token service providers by mandating that unlicensed entities cease overseas activities by June 30, 2025, without any transition period. This directive, rooted in the FSM Act, encompasses any Singapore-incorporated or -operated entity that offers digital token services to non-resident customers. With fines up to $200,000 (SGD 250,000) and potential imprisonment for non-compliance, MAS’s approach underscores its zero-tolerance stance on cross-border AML/CFT and proliferation financing risks.

MAS has carved out “extremely limited circumstances” under which licensing may be granted, emphasizing robust economic justification for overseas-only operations, unwavering adherence to FATF standards, and demonstrable governance capabilities. The minimum capital requirement of $250,000 (SGD) and the demand for seasoned executive leadership further ensure only well-funded, compliance-oriented players remain. Industry pushback highlighted concerns over the tight four-week compliance window, but MAS refused to bend, reflecting a broader global trend toward stringent crypto regulation in Asia-Pacific and beyond. 

However, this regulatory rigor may catalyze new opportunities for crypto businesses and investors. Licensed DTSPs stand to benefit from enhanced investor trust, the ability to develop institutional-grade products, and partnerships that leverage Singapore’s robust financial reputation. Entrepreneurs can capitalize on demand for RegTech, compliance advisory, blockchain analytics, and specialized insurance products. Meanwhile, global parallels in Thailand, Hong Kong, and the EU indicate that MAS’s framework could serve as a blueprint for other financial hubs seeking to balance innovation with risk mitigation. 

For readers seeking new crypto assets, revenue streams, and practical blockchain applications, understanding Singapore’s evolving regulatory landscape is essential. By aligning with MAS’s requirements—whether through licensing, relocating operations, or targeting the local market—entrepreneurs can position themselves for sustainable growth. Although the June 30 deadline looms large, it also affirms Singapore’s commitment to becoming a responsible and resilient digital asset hub. Ultimately, those who adapt swiftly and invest in robust compliance infrastructures will be best poised to thrive in the next phase of crypto’s maturation.