The rapid expansion of the cryptoasset sector has prompted global regulators to reevaluate their approaches to digital finance. The 2024 2nd Global Cryptoasset Regulatory Landscape Study conducted by the Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance (CCAF) provides an empirical and comparative overview of how jurisdictions are approaching this challenge. As cryptoassets shift from the fringes of financial innovation to the center of mainstream discourse, regulators are grappling with the need to balance innovation with stability, security, and investor protection. The study, which examined regulatory frameworks across 19 jurisdictions, highlights key patterns, challenges, and strategies that are emerging globally.
A central finding of the study is the convergence around the need to regulate cryptoassets through bespoke frameworks, moving beyond merely applying existing financial rules. Jurisdictions are beginning to recognize that the unique characteristics of cryptoassets – such as decentralization, programmability, and cross-border operability – require tailored regulation rather than retrofitted models. Many advanced economies have moved toward defining cryptoassets as speculative investment instruments rather than means of payment. This classification trend underscores the shift in perception among regulators, particularly in high-income jurisdictions that are driving reform. However, the global regulatory landscape remains fragmented, particularly in Emerging Markets and Developing Economies (EMDEs), where capacity constraints and macroeconomic concerns have led some to introduce prohibitions rather than inclusive frameworks.
The study emphasizes that the classification of cryptoassets is foundational to regulatory effectiveness. Distinguishing between cryptoassets and financial instruments, as well as identifying subclasses like stablecoins or NFTs, is key to assigning regulatory responsibilities and enabling international cooperation. A clear taxonomy also reduces opportunities for regulatory arbitrage and provides clarity for market participants. Despite this, many jurisdictions continue to struggle with consistent definitions, resulting in varying approaches to market admission, licensing requirements, and enforcement thresholds. For example, while the European Union’s MiCA regulation takes a residual approach – defining cryptoassets as those represented on distributed ledger technologies (DLTs) that are not already financial instruments – other jurisdictions use lists, assessments, or case-by-case reviews to determine admissibility.
Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Combating the Financing of Terrorism (CFT) measures have historically been the entry point for regulation in many jurisdictions, often preceding full regulatory frameworks. The study reveals that most jurisdictions now impose AML registration or licensing obligations on cryptoasset service providers (CASPs). Still, global enforcement of standards such as the FATF Travel Rule remains inconsistent. Even when implemented, less than a third of jurisdictions have taken enforcement actions, revealing gaps in supervision and technological readiness. Many regulators are now turning to blockchain analytics and AI-driven compliance tools to bridge this divide, but alignment remains an issue across borders. Travel Rule thresholds, for instance, range from zero in parts of the EU to $3,000 in Japan, adding to the complexity for service providers operating internationally .
Governance standards for CASPs are also evolving. Regulations are beginning to demand more than just compliance checklists – they require rules on customer due diligence, asset segregation, transparency in operations, and enhanced disclosures. The study notes that while staking services remain largely unregulated in most jurisdictions, a few have begun introducing bespoke licensing regimes to address associated risks. These initiatives often stem from lessons learned during high-profile protocol failures and market manipulations over the past two years, underscoring the urgency for operational safeguards.
Differences in how jurisdictions approach consumer protection and market access are also prominent in the study. Some jurisdictions, like Hong Kong, now require retail suitability assessments and mandate that listed cryptoassets meet minimum liquidity criteria. Others enforce outright bans due to concerns over currency substitution, capital flight, and monetary policy erosion, particularly in EMDEs where fiat currency vulnerabilities and financial exclusion are more pronounced. These divergent approaches reflect varying policy priorities and economic realities, highlighting the challenge of crafting globally harmonized standards.
Looking ahead, the study anticipates greater regulatory convergence driven by ongoing implementation reviews from global standard-setting bodies such as the Financial Stability Board and FATF. However, success will depend on regulators’ willingness to share data, coordinate supervision, and adopt interoperable technologies that enable transparency and real-time oversight. Jurisdictions seeking to establish or update their cryptoasset regulations are encouraged to develop clear classifications, integrate AML standards from the outset, adopt proportionate governance measures, and anticipate emerging risks such as DeFi and tokenized financial instruments.
The regulatory future of cryptoassets lies not in isolation but in integration—integrating these technologies into the broader financial system through coherent, coordinated, and future-proof regulation. As noted in the study, jurisdictions that take a structured approach and learn from comparative models are better positioned to foster innovation while mitigating systemic risks. The CCAF Global Regulatory Innovation Dashboard complements these efforts by offering regulators and stakeholders a real-time visualization of regulatory developments across jurisdictions. As crypto adoption accelerates, frameworks built on collaboration, clarity, and compliance will determine which markets thrive in this new digital financial era.
For more insights, the full study can be accessed here: Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance – 2nd Global Cryptoasset Regulatory Landscape Study
