CryptoUK’s response to FCA Consultation Paper 26/13: Cryptoasset Perimeter Guidance
CryptoUK and its members welcome the opportunity to respond to the FCA’s Consultation Paper CP26/13: Cryptoasset Perimeter Guidance, published on 15 April 2026. The consultation represents an important step in providing greater clarity on the scope of the UK’s future cryptoasset regulatory regime ahead of its implementation in October 2027, including which cryptoassets, products, and activities will fall within the regulatory perimeter.
As the UK’s self-regulatory trade association for the crypto and digital assets sector, CryptoUK represents more than 150 companies operating across the ecosystem, including exchanges, custodians, infrastructure providers, payments firms, blockchain networks, and professional services organisations. Many of our members operate internationally and engage with regulatory and policy frameworks across multiple jurisdictions, bringing both domestic and global perspectives to the development of the UK’s future regulatory approach.
We welcome the FCA’s continued engagement with industry as it develops a comprehensive regulatory framework for cryptoassets. In our response, we have provided detailed answers to the questions set out within the Consultation Paper, alongside broader observations on the proposed perimeter guidance and the wider approach to the future cryptoasset regime. Our comments seek to support the development of a clear, proportionate, and internationally competitive framework that promotes responsible innovation while delivering appropriate consumer protections and market integrity.
- International interoperability and competitiveness – We welcome the FCA’s objective of providing greater clarity to market participants on the scope of the regulatory perimeter and when authorisation is required. However, given the inherently cross border nature of cryptoasset markets and the fact that many firms operate across multiple jurisdictions, we would encourage the FCA to ensure that the UK regime remains aligned, where appropriate, with international regulatory developments, including MiCA and IOSCO recommendations. Divergence in perimeter interpretation could increase fragmentation, create duplicative compliance costs and potentially reduce the attractiveness of the UK market. A globally interoperable regime would help support consumer protection while maintaining the UK’s competitiveness as a centre for responsible cryptoasset innovation.
- Territorial scope and cross border services – We would be grateful for further practical guidance on how the “in the UK” test applies in complex cross border scenarios, particularly where services are provided remotely or through global platforms, or where liquidity, price formation and user activity are distributed across jurisdictions. Additional guidance on what constitutes “targeting” the UK would be beneficial, enabling firms to assess whether they practically fall within the scope of the regime.
- Trading platforms and technical services – The guidance should more clearly distinguish operating a qualifying cryptoasset trading platform or arranging deals from providing technology, software or connectivity. Firms would welcome examples showing how the FCA will assess control, system design, operational involvement and trading linked remuneration. Additional guidance on the intended scope of the regime as it applies to technology providers would also be welcome.
- Decentralised, automated and hybrid models – We welcome the FCA’s clarification that the use of decentralised technologies, smart contracts or public blockchains does not, in itself, place an activity outside the regulatory perimeter. However, given the increasing prevalence of partially decentralised and hybrid models, further guidance would be beneficial on how concepts such as “control”, “operation”, “maintenance” and “commercial benefit” should be interpreted in practice. Without such clarification, there is a risk that the perimeter may be understood too broadly and may inadvertently capture DeFi or protocol related activity where there is no identifiable person carrying on the relevant regulated activity in the UK. A proportionate, outcomes focused approach would support consistent application without discouraging responsible innovation.
- Classification of cryptoassets and perimeter concepts – We support the FCA’s efforts to explain the new categories of qualifying cryptoassets, qualifying stablecoins and specified investment cryptoassets. That said, the concepts of fungibility, transferability and functioning as more than a mere record of value or rights may raise interpretative questions in practice, particularly for novel token models, wrapped tokens, liquid staking tokens and other emerging use cases. Further examples and internationally aligned classification principles would help reduce divergent interpretations and provide firms with greater confidence when assessing whether particular assets and activities fall within the perimeter.
- Stablecoins – In light of the recent amendments introduced by HM Treasury concerning the activities of arranging and dealing as they relate to UK qualifying stablecoins, we recommend that additional guidance be issued to clarify the scope of regulated activities applicable to stablecoins, particularly with respect to any distinctions that may arise depending on whether the stablecoin in question is issued domestically within the UK or issued by a foreign entity.
- Proportionate implementation and interaction with related regimes – As the FCA develops the future cryptoasset regulatory regime, we would encourage continued focus on proportionality, clarity and coherence with adjacent regimes, including the Money Laundering Regulations and the financial promotions regime. Firms would benefit from guidance that clearly distinguishes the perimeter for regulated cryptoasset activities from related obligations, including where a person provides advice, makes financial promotions or carries on activities in relation to specified investment cryptoassets. Clear signposting between PERG 19, PERG 8 and the existing PERG framework would help avoid unnecessary uncertainty and support timely, accurate applications for authorisation.
