In a bold move that could reshape the global regulatory landscape for digital assets, Australia’s top fintech regulator, Rhys Bollen, has called for a technology-agnostic approach to crypto regulation.
Speaking at the Melbourne Money & Finance Conference, Bollen, the head of fintech at the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC), emphasized that blockchain and crypto should be regulated based on their economic substance rather than their technological form. “Digital assets largely represent new technological instances of longstanding financial activities,” Bollen stated. “While the mechanisms of issuance, transfer, and record-keeping have changed, the underlying economic functions served by these instruments have not.”
Bollen’s stance stands in contrast to the crypto-specific regulatory frameworks emerging in other jurisdictions, such as the CLARITY Act in the United States and the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation in the European Union. These frameworks often treat crypto as a distinct asset class, which Bollen argues can lead to regulatory arbitrage and confusion.
Regulating by Function, Not Form
Bollen outlined that tokenized securities should fall under securities laws, stablecoins should be subject to payment services legislation, and other aspects of crypto may be governed by consumer protection laws. This approach, he believes, will provide clearer rules for market participants and reduce the opportunities for regulatory arbitrage.
Australia is already taking steps in this direction with the Digital Asset Framework bill, which seeks to amend parts of the Corporations Act rather than creating a standalone crypto bill. “The Bill does not abandon the existing financial services framework. Instead, it introduces tailored amendments that integrate digital asset platforms into the established regulatory architecture,” Bollen explained.
ASIC’s Guidance and the Role of Intermediaries
ASIC’s Information Sheet 225 further clarifies that existing definitions of “financial product” and “financial service” under the Corporations Act can apply to digital assets. This guidance explicitly rejects the notion that digital assets constitute a discrete asset class for regulatory purposes. Instead, it confirms that a digital asset may fall within the regulatory perimeter if it functions as a security, derivative, managed investment scheme interest, or non-cash payment facility.
Bollen highlighted that the focus should be on the economic characteristics of the assets rather than their technological labels. “Regulatory systems have repeatedly adapted to technological change—from paper instruments to electronic records—without abandoning foundational principles such as consumer protection, market integrity, and systemic stability,” he added.
Challenges and Forward-Looking Insights
Bollen acknowledged that decentralized products and services present unique challenges, particularly in terms of classification. However, he emphasized that legal analysis should focus on practical control and benefit rather than formal claims of decentralization. “Where identifiable parties exercise influence over protocol design, governance, or economic outcomes, regulatory obligations can and should attach,” he stated.
This approach not only aligns with the evolving nature of financial technology but also ensures that regulatory frameworks remain robust and adaptable. As the global crypto market continues to grow, Bollen’s vision of technology-agnostic regulation could serve as a model for other countries seeking to balance innovation with consumer protection.
In the coming years, the success of Australia’s approach will be closely watched by regulators and industry participants worldwide. By focusing on the economic substance of digital assets, Australia aims to create a regulatory environment that fosters innovation while maintaining the integrity of the financial system.
About the Author
