{ "jurisdiction_id": "US-WI", "jurisdiction": "United States – Wisconsin", "url": "https://cryptoassets.gi/jurisdictions/united-states-wisconsin/", "generator": "render_jid v13.3.0", "date_modified": "2026-08-17", "schema_version": "crypto-v2.0.0", "counts": { "modules": 8, "sourced_findings": 14, "source_register": 9 }, "modules": [ { "code": "crypto_licensing", "name": "Crypto Licensing", "confidence": null, "moved_this_cycle": false, "url": "https://cryptoassets.gi/jurisdictions/united-states-wisconsin/#crypto-licensing-crypto-licensing", "standing_position": "Wisconsin has no bespoke crypto-asset licensing statute. Virtual-currency exchange, custody and money-transmission activity is captured under Wisconsin's general money-transmitter licensing regime, administered by the Wisconsin Department of Financial Institutions (DFI) and processed through the multistate NMLS infrastructure used by most U.S. states. Separately, Wisconsin has moved aggressively against prediction-market platforms (several of which are crypto-native exchanges) on the theory that their 'event contracts' constitute unlicensed gambling under state law, triggering a direct federal preemption fight with the CFTC.", "findings": [ { "finding": null, "instrument_type": null, "source": null, "source_url": null, "source_tier": null, "retrieved_at": null }, { "finding": null, "instrument_type": null, "source": null, "source_url": null, "source_tier": null, "retrieved_at": null }, { "finding": null, "instrument_type": null, "source": null, "source_url": null, "source_tier": null, "retrieved_at": null } ] }, { "code": "token_classification", "name": "Token Classification", "confidence": null, "moved_this_cycle": false, "url": "https://cryptoassets.gi/jurisdictions/united-states-wisconsin/#token-classification-token-classification", "standing_position": "Wisconsin has no state-level token taxonomy; classification of crypto assets as securities, commodities, or other instrument types is governed exclusively at the federal level by the SEC (in coordination with the CFTC), most recently through the SEC's March 2026 interpretive release establishing a five-category taxonomy (digital commodities, digital collectibles, digital tools, stablecoins, digital securities) and its January 2026 statement on tokenized securities.", "findings": [ { "finding": null, "instrument_type": null, "source": null, "source_url": null, "source_tier": null, "retrieved_at": null }, { "finding": null, "instrument_type": null, "source": null, "source_url": null, "source_tier": null, "retrieved_at": null }, { "finding": null, "instrument_type": null, "source": null, "source_url": null, "source_tier": null, "retrieved_at": null } ] }, { "code": "on_chain_activity_regime", "name": "On-Chain Activity Regime", "confidence": null, "moved_this_cycle": false, "url": "https://cryptoassets.gi/jurisdictions/united-states-wisconsin/#on-chain-activity-regime-on-chain-activity-regime", "standing_position": "Wisconsin has not enacted any state-specific licensing or regulatory regime for on-chain activities such as staking, DeFi lending, mining, node operation, or validation. Federal characterization (SEC/CFTC) of the underlying digital commodity governs most substantive treatment; state money-transmitter law may incidentally apply only if an activity involves custodial transmission of value.", "findings": [ { "finding": null, "instrument_type": null, "source": null, "source_url": null, "source_tier": null, "retrieved_at": null } ] }, { "code": "stablecoin_regime", "name": "Stablecoin Regime", "confidence": null, "moved_this_cycle": false, "url": "https://cryptoassets.gi/jurisdictions/united-states-wisconsin/#stablecoin-regime-stablecoin-regime", "standing_position": "Wisconsin has no state-level stablecoin issuance, reserve, or redemption regime. Stablecoin treatment is governed federally by the GENIUS Act framework referenced in the SEC's 2026 crypto-asset interpretation, under which payment stablecoins issued by permitted issuers are categorically excluded from the securities definition once the Act is effective.", "findings": [ { "finding": null, "instrument_type": null, "source": null, "source_url": null, "source_tier": null, "retrieved_at": null }, { "finding": null, "instrument_type": null, "source": null, "source_url": null, "source_tier": null, "retrieved_at": null } ] }, { "code": "consumer_protection", "name": "Consumer Protection", "confidence": null, "moved_this_cycle": false, "url": "https://cryptoassets.gi/jurisdictions/united-states-wisconsin/#consumer-protection-consumer-protection", "standing_position": "Investor-protection outreach for Wisconsin crypto/digital-asset investors runs primarily through the Wisconsin DFI's Securities Division in coordination with the SEC and NASAA, rather than through any crypto-specific consumer-protection statute. No Wisconsin-specific crypto marketing-restriction, custody-segregation, or suitability rule distinct from general securities/MTL consumer-protection law has been identified.", "findings": [ { "finding": null, "instrument_type": null, "source": null, "source_url": null, "source_tier": null, "retrieved_at": null } ] }, { "code": "tax_treatment", "name": "Tax Treatment", "confidence": null, "moved_this_cycle": false, "url": "https://cryptoassets.gi/jurisdictions/united-states-wisconsin/#tax-treatment-tax-treatment", "standing_position": "Wisconsin's crypto tax treatment is expected to follow the federal income-tax baseline (crypto as property, capital-gains treatment on disposition) because Wisconsin's individual income tax generally conforms to federal adjusted gross income definitions; however, no Wisconsin Department of Revenue-specific crypto guidance was independently verified in this pass, so state-conformity claims carry lower confidence than the underlying federal claims.", "findings": [ { "finding": null, "instrument_type": null, "source": null, "source_url": null, "source_tier": null, "retrieved_at": null }, { "finding": null, "instrument_type": null, "source": null, "source_url": null, "source_tier": null, "retrieved_at": null }, { "finding": null, "instrument_type": null, "source": null, "source_url": null, "source_tier": null, "retrieved_at": null } ] }, { "code": "cross_border_transfer", "name": "Cross-Border Transfer", "confidence": null, "moved_this_cycle": false, "url": "https://cryptoassets.gi/jurisdictions/united-states-wisconsin/#cross-border-transfer-cross-border-transfer", "standing_position": "Wisconsin has no state-specific cross-border crypto transfer regime; outbound-restriction, sanctions-nexus, and travel-rule obligations affecting cross-border crypto transfers are governed exclusively at the federal level (OFAC sanctions, FinCEN travel rule), consistent with the state's lack of a bespoke crypto statute.", "findings": [ { "finding": null, "instrument_type": null, "source": null, "source_url": null, "source_tier": null, "retrieved_at": null } ] }, { "code": "aml_cft_regime", "name": "AML/CFT Regime", "confidence": null, "moved_this_cycle": false, "url": "https://cryptoassets.gi/jurisdictions/united-states-wisconsin/#aml-cft-regime-aml-cft-regime", "standing_position": "Crypto AML/CFT obligations are subscribed from the fleet's Financial Integrity Monitor (FIM) module and are not re-baselined here per the F9 subscription rule. Any AML-relevant material found (e.g., FinCEN money-transmitter/exchanger characterization of virtual-currency businesses) is captured only as disambiguation context: federal FinCEN treatment of virtual-currency exchangers/administrators as money transmitters subject to BSA registration is the operative federal backdrop against which Wisconsin's state MTL regime sits, but substantive AML/CFT claims belong to the FIM baseline, not this crypto baseline.", "findings": [] } ] }