Cryptoassets Regulatory Intelligence · Cross-Jurisdiction Domain Hub
Token classification & perimeter
Jurisdiction Readings (170 markets)
27 clear/open
113 conditional/active
30 restricted/elevated
| Jurisdiction | Region | Status | Regulatory Summary | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| African bloc (AFR) | Africa | Amber | There is no continental taxonomy classifying crypto-assets into security token, e-money token, asset-referenced token, utility token, stablecoin or NFT categories. The AfCFTA Protocol on Digital… | Profile →Brief |
| Alabama, USA (US-AL) | Americas | Amber | Alabama does not operate an independent state-level token taxonomy; token classification for Alabama-resident transactions flows from federal law. In March 2026 the SEC, joined by the CFTC, issued a… | Profile →Brief |
| Alaska, USA (US-AK) | Americas | Amber | Alaska does not operate an independent token-classification regime. Per the seed disambiguation, characterization of crypto assets as securities or commodities is governed entirely by federal law… | Profile →Brief |
| Alberta, Canada (CA-AB) | Americas | Amber | Alberta follows the CSA's functional 'crypto contract' classification for exchange-held crypto (treated as a security regardless of the underlying asset's status), while Alberta specifically hosts a… | Profile →Brief |
| Algeria (DZ) | Africa | Red | Algeria has no positive legal taxonomy distinguishing security tokens, e-money tokens, asset-referenced tokens, utility tokens, stablecoins, or NFTs. The 2018 Finance Law's 'monnaie virtuelle'… | Profile →Brief |
| Antigua and Barbuda (AG) | Caribbean | Red | No DABA provision distinguishing token sub-categories (security token, e-money token, asset-referenced token, utility token, stablecoin, NFT) was located; the Act appears to regulate 'digital assets… | Profile →Brief |
| Argentina (AR) | Americas | Amber | Argentina has no MiCA-style statutory taxonomy distinguishing e-money tokens, asset-referenced tokens, or utility tokens. Crypto assets are generically termed 'activos virtuales' for AML/registration… | Profile →Brief |
| Arizona, USA (US-AZ) | Americas | Amber | Arizona has no independent state-law taxonomy for crypto tokens. Classification for securities, commodity, and stablecoin purposes in Arizona is governed by federal law: the SEC/CFTC's March 2026… | Profile →Brief |
| Arkansas, USA (US-AR) | Americas | Amber | Arkansas has not enacted a state-level statutory taxonomy for token classification. Per the jurisdiction disambiguation, token characterization for securities/commodity purposes is governed… | Profile →Brief |
| Asia-Pacific bloc (APAC) | Asia-Pacific | Amber | No unified APAC token taxonomy exists. Cross-country comparative work (BIS FSI) finds that jurisdictions across the region uniformly bring security-token issuance within securities regulation, but… | Profile →Brief |
| Australia (AU) | Asia-Pacific | Amber | ASIC applies a functional, technology-neutral test under the Corporations Act 2001 rather than bespoke crypto categories: whether a digital asset is a 'financial product' turns on its substantive… | Profile →Brief |
| Austria (AT) | Europe | Green | Austria applies MiCA's harmonised EU taxonomy without a bespoke national classification layer: asset-referenced tokens (ART), e-money tokens (EMT), and 'other crypto-assets' (including utility… | Profile →Brief |
| Bangladesh (BD) | Asia-Pacific | Red | Bangladesh has no statutory taxonomy for crypto-assets. FERA 1947's definition of 'currency' does not recognise virtual currencies, and virtual assets are not an approved form of foreign exchange or… | Profile →Brief |
| Belgium (BE) | Europe | Amber | Belgium's FSMA issued pre-MiCA guidance (2022) distinguishing crypto-assets with an issuer (potentially securities/investment instruments subject to prospectus and MiFID rules) from those without an… | Profile →Brief |
| Belize (BZ) | Americas | Red | Belize has not enacted a statutory token taxonomy distinguishing security tokens, e-money tokens, asset-referenced tokens, utility tokens, stablecoins or NFTs. The FSCA addresses virtual assets only… | Profile →Brief |
| Brazil (BR) | Americas | Amber | Brazil applies a functional/economic-substance test rather than a technology-based test: crypto assets meeting the definition of a security under Law 6,385/1976 fall under CVM's jurisdiction (per CVM… | Profile →Brief |
| British Columbia, Canada (CA-BC) | Americas | Amber | The CSA does not classify most cryptocurrencies (e.g. bitcoin) as securities themselves, but deems the contractual claim a client holds against a custodial trading platform (a 'crypto contract') to… | Profile →Brief |
| Bulgaria (BG) | Europe | Green | Bulgaria transposes MiCA's tripartite crypto-asset taxonomy (asset-referenced tokens, e-money tokens, and other crypto-assets) without a distinct national classification scheme. The FSC applies… | Profile →Brief |
| Cambodia (KH) | Asia-Pacific | Amber | Cambodia has no statutory token taxonomy distinguishing security tokens, e-money tokens, asset-referenced tokens, utility tokens, stablecoins or NFTs. The NBC's historical posture (a 2014 statement… | Profile →Brief |
| Cameroon (CM) | Africa | Red | No Cameroonian or CEMAC-level instrument classifying crypto-assets (as securities, e-money, utility tokens, or otherwise) was located during this research pass. Absent a bespoke taxonomy, any… | Profile →Brief |
| Canada (CA) | Americas | Amber | Canada does not have a bespoke statutory token taxonomy. The CSA's 'crypto contract' concept sweeps client claims on exchange-held crypto into the security category regardless of the underlying… | Profile →Brief |
| Canada — Kahnawake (CA-KAH) | Americas | Amber | Canada does not operate a MiCA-style formal token taxonomy. <cite index="44-3">Crypto assets that are commodities (e.g., Bitcoin, Ether) are distinguished from the contractual right to those assets… | Profile →Brief |
| Canada — Tobique First Nation (CA-TFN) | Americas | Amber | Canada has no bespoke token-classification statute. Classification proceeds via a facts-and-circumstances securities-law test applied by the CSA on a case-by-case basis, including the novel 'crypto… | Profile →Brief |
| Chile (CL) | Americas | Amber | Chile has not enacted a bespoke statutory taxonomy for crypto-assets (no equivalent to MiCA's ART/EMT/utility-token distinctions). The general Securities Market Law (Ley N° 18,045) governs whether an… | Profile →Brief |
| China (CN) | Asia-Pacific | Red | China does not operate a positive token taxonomy. Virtual currencies (including bitcoin and stablecoins such as USDT) are officially denied legal-tender/fiat status and are treated as… | Profile →Brief |
| Colombia (CO) | Americas | Amber | Colombia has no statutory token taxonomy. Administrative determinations by the central bank (Banco de la República) and the SFC characterize virtual currencies as neither currency nor legal tender… | Profile →Brief |
| Colorado, USA (US-CO) | Americas | Amber | Colorado has historically explored a state-level securities exemption for consumptive-purpose digital tokens (the proposed Colorado Digital Token Act), but this research pass could not independently… | Profile →Brief |
| Comoros (KM) | Africa | Red | No Comorian statute or regulatory guidance differentiates crypto-asset sub-types (security token, e-money token, asset-referenced token, utility token, stablecoin, NFT). The regulatory vacuum… | Profile →Brief |
| Comoros — Anjouan (KM-A) | Africa | Red | The Union of the Comoros has no statutory taxonomy distinguishing security tokens, e-money tokens, asset-referenced tokens, utility tokens, stablecoins or NFTs. The FATF mutual evaluation attributes… | Profile →Brief |
| Comoros — Mohéli (KM-M) | Africa | Red | No statutory or regulatory taxonomy distinguishing security tokens, e-money tokens, asset-referenced tokens, utility tokens, stablecoins, or NFTs has been identified for the Union of the Comoros or… | Profile →Brief |
| Connecticut, USA (US-CT) | Americas | Amber | Connecticut does not operate its own token-taxonomy regime; per the jurisdiction disambiguation, characterisation of crypto assets as securities, commodities, or payment stablecoins is governed by… | Profile →Brief |
| Costa Rica (CR) | Americas | Amber | Costa Rica has no statutory token taxonomy. The Central Bank of Costa Rica (BCCR) has issued non-binding administrative interpretations: a 2017 communiqué stating that cryptocurrencies (including… | Profile →Brief |
| Croatia (HR) | Europe | Amber | MiCA, as directly applicable in Croatia, establishes three principal categories: asset-referenced tokens (ARTs), e-money tokens (EMTs), and other crypto-assets (utility-token-like instruments… | Profile →Brief |
| Curaçao (CW) | Caribbean | Amber | VASPA regulates by activity (exchange, transfer, custody, administration, issuance-related services) rather than through a MiCA-style differentiated token taxonomy. Security-type tokens and related… | Profile →Brief |
| Cyprus (CY) | Europe | Green | Cyprus follows MiCA's tripartite crypto-asset taxonomy (asset-referenced tokens, e-money tokens, and other crypto-assets including utility tokens and NFTs), applied uniformly under CySEC/CBC… | Profile →Brief |
| Czech Republic (CZ) | Europe | Green | As an EU Member State applying MiCA directly, Czech token classification follows the Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 taxonomy: asset-referenced tokens (ART), e-money tokens (EMT), and other crypto-assets… | Profile →Brief |
| Delaware, USA (US-DE) | Americas | Amber | Delaware has no state-level token-classification taxonomy. Whether a given crypto-asset is a security, commodity, or other instrument is determined at the federal level (SEC/CFTC), not by Delaware… | Profile →Brief |
| Denmark (DK) | Europe | Amber | Denmark applies the MiCA taxonomy (ART / EMT / other crypto-assets), overlaid with ESMA/EBA guidelines on the boundary with MiFID II financial instruments. Finanstilsynet performs its own independent… | Profile →Brief |
| District of Columbia, USA (US-DC) | Americas | Amber | The District of Columbia has not enacted an independent token-classification framework. Characterization of crypto assets for securities/commodities purposes is governed federally. In March 2026, the… | Profile →Brief |
| Dominican Republic (DO) | Americas | Red | Dominican regulation does not adopt a differentiated token taxonomy. Resolución JM 210129-02, Art. 4(a) defines a single undifferentiated 'Activo Virtual' category encompassing all cryptoassets, with… | Profile →Brief |
| Ecuador (EC) | Americas | Green | MiCA distinguishes three categories of crypto-asset: electronic money tokens (EMTs), asset-referenced tokens (ARTs), and other crypto-assets (including utility tokens). Unique, non-fungible NFTs are… | Profile →Brief |
| Egypt (EG) | Africa | Red | Egyptian banking law provides only a broad, non-granular definition of 'cryptocurrency' as distinguished from 'electronic money,' with no MiCA-style taxonomy (no distinct… | Profile →Brief |
| Estonia (EE) | Europe | Green | As an EU/MiCA jurisdiction, Estonia applies the Regulation's harmonised taxonomy directly: asset-referenced tokens (ART), e-money tokens (EMT), and 'other' crypto-assets (including utility tokens)… | Profile →Brief |
| European Economic Area (EEA) | Europe | Green | MiCA establishes three principal harmonised crypto-asset categories for the EEA: asset-referenced tokens (ARTs), e-money tokens (EMTs), and 'other' crypto-assets (which include most utility tokens)… | Profile →Brief |
| Finland (FI) | Europe | Green | Finland applies the MiCA taxonomy directly (no material gold-plating identified): asset-referenced tokens (ARTs), e-money tokens (EMTs), and 'other' crypto-assets (broadly utility-token-like) are… | Profile →Brief |
| Florida, USA (US-FL) | Americas | Amber | Florida has no state-specific token taxonomy; per the seed disambiguation, security/commodity characterisation defers to federal SEC/CFTC jurisdiction, including a March 2026 SEC-CFTC joint… | Profile →Brief |
| France (FR) | Europe | Green | MiCA's tri-part taxonomy (asset-referenced tokens/ART, e-money tokens/EMT, and 'other' crypto-assets including utility tokens) applies in France; e-money tokens require ACPR-authorised e-money… | Profile →Brief |
| Georgia, USA (US-GA) | Americas | Amber | Georgia does not operate an independent state-level token-classification regime. Token characterization for securities purposes is governed by federal SEC/CFTC jurisdiction applying the Howey… | Profile →Brief |
| Germany (DE) | Europe | Green | Germany follows the MiCA taxonomy: asset-referenced tokens (ARTs), e-money tokens (EMTs), and other crypto-assets (utility tokens, unclassified tokens), with BaFin as the national competent authority… | Profile →Brief |
| Ghana (GH) | Africa | Amber | Act 1154's Schedule lists licensable VASP service categories including Stablecoin Issuance, Asset Tokenization Services, Virtual Asset Dealing Services, Virtual Asset Lending and Borrowing Services… | Profile →Brief |
| Gibraltar (GI) | Europe | Confirmed | Gibraltar has not adopted a codified statutory token taxonomy equivalent to EU MiCA (such as separate statutory categories for ARTs, EMTs or utility tokens); regulatory classification under the… | Profile →Brief |
| Greece (GR) | Europe | Amber | Greece applies the MiCAR taxonomy directly: asset-referenced tokens (ARTs), e-money tokens (EMTs), and 'other' crypto-assets (utility tokens) are distinguished per Titles III, IV and II respectively.… | Profile →Brief |
| Guernsey (GG) | Europe | Amber | Guernsey has not been found to operate a bespoke statutory token taxonomy (no ART/EMT-style categories akin to MiCA were located). Historically the GFSC assessed crypto-assets/ICOs case-by-case for… | Profile →Brief |
| Guernsey — Alderney (GG-ALD) | Europe | Amber | No bespoke statutory token taxonomy equivalent to MiCA's asset-referenced-token / e-money-token / utility-token categories was identified for the Bailiwick of Guernsey. VASP scope is instead captured… | Profile →Brief |
| Hawaii, USA (US-HI) | Americas | Amber | Hawaii has no state-level statute characterizing tokens as securities, e-money, asset-referenced tokens, or utility tokens. Per the seed disambiguation, token characterization for… | Profile →Brief |
| Hong Kong (HK) | Asia-Pacific | Amber | The SFC treats tokenized securities as traditional securities wrapped in tokenization technology, applying existing Securities and Futures Ordinance requirements to them without a bespoke category.… | Profile →Brief |
| Hungary (HU) | Europe | Amber | Hungary follows the EU-wide MiCA taxonomy of asset-referenced tokens (ART), e-money tokens (EMT), and other crypto-assets (including utility tokens), with MNB implementing ESMA's guidelines on the… | Profile →Brief |
| Iceland (IS) | Europe | Amber | MiCA's classification taxonomy (asset-referenced tokens, e-money tokens, other/utility crypto-assets) is the prospective classification framework for Iceland once domestic transposition is complete… | Profile →Brief |
| Idaho, USA (US-ID) | Americas | Amber | Idaho has no state-specific securities-token or crypto-classification statute; token characterisation is governed by federal SEC/CFTC jurisdiction. In March 2026 the SEC, joined by the CFTC, issued a… | Profile →Brief |
| Illinois, USA (US-IL) | Americas | Amber | Illinois has not enacted a state-level token taxonomy; token characterization is governed exclusively at the federal level. 2026 SEC interpretive guidance distinguishes digital commodities (e.g.… | Profile →Brief |
| India (IN) | Asia-Pacific | Amber | India classifies crypto assets broadly as 'Virtual Digital Assets' (VDA) under Section 2(47A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (inserted by the Finance Act 2022), a definition intentionally wide enough to… | Profile →Brief |
| Indiana, USA (US-IN) | Americas | Amber | Indiana has no state-level token-classification regime. Per the disambiguation seed, characterisation of tokens as securities or commodities is governed exclusively by federal SEC/CFTC jurisdiction… | Profile →Brief |
| Indonesia (ID) | Asia-Pacific | Amber | Crypto assets in Indonesia remain formally classified as commodities pending full completion of the OJK transition, with market and regulator commentary indicating a likely reclassification toward… | Profile →Brief |
| Iowa, USA (US-IA) | Americas | Amber | Iowa has no state-specific token-classification statute. Whether a given crypto asset is a security, commodity, or other instrument is governed exclusively at the federal level by SEC/CFTC… | Profile →Brief |
| Ireland (IE) | Europe | Green | MiCA establishes an EU-harmonised taxonomy applied directly in Ireland: e-money tokens (EMTs) and asset-referenced tokens (ARTs) are subject to issuance authorisation regimes, while 'other'… | Profile →Brief |
| Isle of Man (IM) | Europe | Amber | IOMFSA's 2020 perimeter guidance takes a technology-neutral, substance-over-form approach: tokens that are pure stores of value or provide access to services (e.g., bitcoin, ether) sit outside the… | Profile →Brief |
| Italy (IT) | Europe | Amber | Italy applies MiCA's EU-wide token taxonomy directly (asset-referenced tokens (ART), e-money tokens (EMT), and other/utility crypto-assets), with no bespoke Italian sub-classification regime… | Profile →Brief |
| Ivory Coast (CI) | Africa | Red | No statutory taxonomy distinguishing security tokens, e-money tokens, asset-referenced tokens, utility tokens, stablecoins or NFTs has been identified under Ivorian law or under the regional… | Profile →Brief |
| Japan (JP) | Asia-Pacific | Amber | Crypto-assets such as Bitcoin and Ether are currently defined under Article 2(5) of the PSA as 'Crypto-Assets', a regime focused on intermediaries with no direct issuer regulation. Following the July… | Profile →Brief |
| Jersey (JE) | Europe | Amber | Jersey operates no bespoke crypto-asset taxonomy equivalent to MiCA's asset-referenced-token/e-money-token/utility-token distinctions. Virtual assets are treated generically as 'virtual currency' for… | Profile →Brief |
| Kansas, USA (US-KS) | Americas | Amber | Token characterisation in Kansas follows federal SEC/CFTC frameworks; there is no Kansas-specific token taxonomy. The SEC has moved through 2025-2026 to formalize a Howey-test-anchored taxonomy… | Profile →Brief |
| Kazakhstan (KZ) | Asia-Pacific | Amber | Kazakh law draws a binary statutory distinction between 'secured' digital assets (backed by an underlying asset/issuer obligation) and 'unsecured' digital assets (e.g., typical cryptocurrencies such… | Profile →Brief |
| Kentucky, USA (US-KY) | Americas | Amber | Kentucky has no bespoke state token taxonomy. HB 701 (2025) statutorily clarifies that mining and staking services are not classified as securities under Kentucky law. Separately, the Kentucky… | Profile →Brief |
| Kenya (KE) | Africa | Amber | Kenya's framework does not yet operate a MiCA-style multi-category token taxonomy. The VASP Act 2025 and draft 2026 Regulations use a broad 'virtual asset' definition, expanded in the draft to… | Profile →Brief |
| Laos (LA) | Asia-Pacific | Amber | Decision 888/MOTC defines 'digital asset' broadly, without a differentiated taxonomy distinguishing security tokens, e-money tokens, asset-referenced tokens, utility tokens, stablecoins or NFTs. IMF… | Profile →Brief |
| Latin America bloc (LATAM) | Americas | Red | GAFILAT applies the FATF-derived, undifferentiated 'Activos Virtuales' (virtual assets) category regionally for AML/CFT purposes; there is no GAFILAT-wide taxonomy distinguishing security tokens… | Profile →Brief |
| Latvia (LV) | Europe | Green | Crypto-assets in Latvia are classified per the MiCA taxonomy applied directly by Latvijas Banka: asset-referenced tokens (ART), e-money tokens (EMT), and 'other' crypto-assets including utility… | Profile →Brief |
| Liechtenstein (LI) | Europe | Amber | As an EEA state, Liechtenstein applies MiCA's tripartite classification (e-money tokens, asset-referenced tokens, and 'other' crypto-assets including utility tokens) under FMA supervision.… | Profile →Brief |
| Lithuania (LT) | Europe | Green | <cite index="49-3,49-4,49-5">MiCA (Regulation (EU) 2023/1114) sets uniform EU-wide requirements distinguishing crypto-assets other than asset-referenced tokens (ARTs) and e-money tokens (EMTs), ARTs… | Profile →Brief |
| Louisiana, USA (US-LA) | Americas | Amber | Louisiana has not enacted a state-level statutory taxonomy classifying tokens (e.g., security token vs. utility token vs. stablecoin). Token characterization in the state is governed by federal… | Profile →Brief |
| Luxembourg (LU) | Europe | Green | Luxembourg applies MiCA's EU-wide taxonomy distinguishing crypto-assets other than asset-referenced tokens (ART) and e-money tokens (EMT), ARTs, and EMTs, each subject to differing authorisation and… | Profile →Brief |
| Macau SAR, China (MO) | Asia-Pacific | Red | AMCM has issued no token-classification taxonomy distinguishing security tokens, e-money tokens, asset-referenced tokens, utility tokens, stablecoins, or NFTs. The 2017 notice uses the generic terms… | Profile →Brief |
| Maine, USA (US-ME) | Americas | Amber | Maine has not enacted its own digital-asset taxonomy. Consistent with the seed disambiguation, token characterisation for securities/commodities purposes is governed by federal SEC/CFTC jurisdiction… | Profile →Brief |
| Malaysia (MY) | Asia-Pacific | Amber | Malaysia's Prescription Order 2019 deems 'digital currency' and 'digital token' meeting prescribed criteria to be securities, bringing them under CMSA disclosure/registration rules. Tokens that do… | Profile →Brief |
| Malta (MT) | Europe | Green | Malta classifies crypto-assets through two overlapping lenses: (i) the EU-level MiCA taxonomy distinguishing asset-referenced tokens (ARTs), e-money tokens (EMTs) and other crypto-assets, which took… | Profile →Brief |
| Marshall Islands (MH) | Asia-Pacific | Amber | No dedicated token-taxonomy statute exists. Classification treatment arises piecemeal: the amended DAO Act 2023 carves governance tokens out of securities treatment where they confer no economic… | Profile →Brief |
| Maryland, USA (US-MD) | Americas | Amber | Maryland has not adopted a state-level statutory taxonomy for crypto-assets. Per the injected disambiguation, token characterisation for securities purposes is governed by federal SEC/CFTC… | Profile →Brief |
| Massachusetts, USA (US-MA) | Americas | Amber | Massachusetts has no independent state token-taxonomy. Token characterization for securities purposes is governed by federal SEC/CFTC doctrine (the Howey test and, since early 2026, the SEC's… | Profile →Brief |
| Mexico (MX) | Americas | Amber | Mexico lacks a comprehensive statutory taxonomy for token types. The Ley Fintech references only the broad category 'activos virtuales' (virtual assets) without sub-classifying tokens by function.… | Profile →Brief |
| Michigan, USA (US-MI) | Americas | Amber | Michigan has not enacted a state-specific token-classification statute. Per the disambiguation applicable to this JID, characterization of a digital asset as a security, commodity, or other… | Profile →Brief |
| Minnesota, USA (US-MN) | Americas | Amber | Minnesota has not enacted a state-specific crypto-asset taxonomy. Token characterization for securities-law purposes is governed by federal SEC/CFTC jurisdiction, consistent with the seed's… | Profile →Brief |
| Mississippi, USA (US-MS) | Americas | Amber | Mississippi does not operate an independent token-classification framework. Classification of a given crypto-asset as a security, commodity, or other instrument is determined at the federal level by… | Profile →Brief |
| Missouri, USA (US-MO) | Americas | Amber | Missouri defers token-as-security/commodity characterization to the federal SEC/CFTC framework rather than maintaining an independent state taxonomy. Within that federal overlay, the Missouri… | Profile →Brief |
| Montana, USA (US-MT) | Americas | Amber | Montana HB 584 (2019) created a state-law exemption from the Montana Securities Act for 'utility tokens' whose purpose is primarily consumptive, subject to conditions including a notice-of-intent… | Profile →Brief |
| Morocco (MA) | Africa | Amber | No statutory taxonomy of crypto-assets currently exists in Morocco; under the 2017 communiqué, virtual currencies are simply treated as an unregulated instrument. Draft Law 42.25 (pending) proposes a… | Profile →Brief |
| Mozambique (MZ) | Africa | Red | Mozambican law provides no taxonomy distinguishing security tokens, e-money tokens, asset-referenced tokens, stablecoins, utility tokens, or NFTs. Bank of Mozambique communications refer to… | Profile →Brief |
| Myanmar (MM) | Asia-Pacific | Red | Myanmar has not published a domestic token-classification taxonomy distinguishing security tokens, e-money tokens, stablecoins, utility tokens, or NFTs. CBM's public advisory on crypto assets… | Profile →Brief |
| Nebraska, USA (US-NE) | Americas | Amber | Nebraska has not enacted a state-specific token classification framework (security token, e-money token, ART, utility token, stablecoin, or NFT). Characterization of a digital asset for securities or… | Profile →Brief |
| Nepal (NP) | Asia-Pacific | Red | Nepal maintains no statutory token taxonomy. NRB's prohibition notices treat all 'virtual currency/cryptocurrency' uniformly as an illegal foreign-exchange instrument, without distinguishing security… | Profile →Brief |
| Netherlands (NL) | Europe | Green | As transposed in the Netherlands, MiCA distinguishes e-money tokens (EMTs) and asset-referenced tokens (ARTs), each subject to Title III/IV issuer authorisation, from 'other' crypto-assets (including… | Profile →Brief |
| Nevada, USA (US-NV) | Americas | Amber | Nevada has not adopted a bespoke statutory taxonomy for classifying digital tokens (security, e-money, asset-referenced, utility, stablecoin, NFT). Money-transmitter applicants engaging in… | Profile →Brief |
| New Brunswick, Canada (CA-NB) | Americas | Amber | New Brunswick applies the national CSA approach to token classification: whether a crypto asset is itself a security (or subject to an investment contract when combined with a trading platform's… | Profile →Brief |
| New Hampshire, USA (US-NH) | Americas | Amber | New Hampshire statute (as added by HB 436) supplies only a generic definition of 'virtual currency' for money-transmission purposes; it does not create a state-specific taxonomy distinguishing… | Profile →Brief |
| New Jersey, USA (US-NJ) | Americas | Amber | Token characterization for securities purposes is governed primarily by federal law: the SEC/CFTC's March 2026 interpretive guidance established a token taxonomy (digital securities, digital… | Profile →Brief |
| New Mexico, USA (US-NM) | Americas | Amber | New Mexico has no state-level token classification framework. Characterisation of crypto assets (as securities, commodities, or otherwise) is governed by federal law, principally the SEC/CFTC… | Profile →Brief |
| New Zealand (NZ) | Asia-Pacific | Amber | FMA guidance treats essentially all tokens or cryptocurrencies sold via ICO-type arrangements as 'securities' under the FMC Act 2013, with further sub-classification (debt security, equity security… | Profile →Brief |
| Nigeria (NG) | Africa | Amber | SEC Nigeria applies a rebuttable presumption that crypto assets are securities, placing the burden of disproof on the issuer, while the CBN's 2023 Guidelines use a narrower 'Digital Asset' definition… | Profile →Brief |
| North Carolina, USA (US-NC) | Americas | Amber | North Carolina has no state-level statute classifying crypto-assets as securities, e-money tokens, asset-referenced tokens, or utility tokens. The MTA's definition of 'virtual currency' is scoped… | Profile →Brief |
| North Dakota, USA (US-ND) | Americas | Amber | North Dakota has no independent state-level token classification regime; classification follows federal law. On March 17, 2026, the SEC and CFTC jointly issued an interpretive release establishing a… | Profile →Brief |
| Norway (NO) | Europe | Green | MiCA as implemented in Norway distinguishes e-money tokens (EMTs), asset-referenced tokens (ARTs), and other crypto-assets outside these categories (utility-type/other tokens), while crypto-assets… | Profile →Brief |
| Ohio, USA (US-OH) | Americas | Amber | Ohio has not enacted a state-specific token taxonomy. Token characterisation for securities purposes is governed by federal SEC/CFTC jurisdiction. In March 2026 the SEC issued an interpretive release… | Profile →Brief |
| Oklahoma, USA (US-OK) | Americas | Green | Oklahoma defers entirely to federal SEC/CFTC jurisdiction for token-as-security/commodity characterization; there is no Oklahoma-specific token taxonomy. As of March 17, 2026, the SEC and CFTC… | Profile →Brief |
| Ontario, Canada (CA-ON) | Americas | Amber | The CSA treats bitcoin and similar crypto assets as commodities rather than securities, but the contractual right a user obtains against a custodial platform (the 'crypto contract') is generally… | Profile →Brief |
| Oregon, USA (US-OR) | Americas | Red | Oregon has no state-level statutory token taxonomy. Federal SEC/CFTC characterization governs token-as-security/commodity status. However, Oregon's Attorney General has pursued an independent… | Profile →Brief |
| Pakistan (PK) | Asia-Pacific | Amber | Pakistan's token classification regime remains largely unclassified pending PVARA secondary rulemaking. SECP's position paper and a standing directive on virtual currencies apply general… | Profile →Brief |
| Palau (PW) | Asia-Pacific | Red | Palau has not enacted statutory definitions distinguishing crypto-asset types (security token, e-money/asset-referenced token, stablecoin, utility token, NFT). The Corporation Act and Financial… | Profile →Brief |
| Panama (PA) | Americas | Amber | Panama has no statutory taxonomy for crypto-assets (no per-se definitions of utility token, security token, e-money token, or stablecoin). The Superintendencia del Mercado de Valores (SMV) instead… | Profile →Brief |
| Pennsylvania, USA (US-PA) | Americas | Amber | Pennsylvania has not codified its own token taxonomy. Per the disambiguation seed, characterisation of a given token as a security, commodity, stablecoin or other instrument is governed by federal… | Profile →Brief |
| Peru (PE) | Americas | Red | Peru has no bespoke statutory taxonomy for token types. The PSAV/AML framework defines 'activos virtuales' broadly for AML purposes without a technology- or function-based classification, and the SMV… | Profile →Brief |
| Philippines (PH) | Asia-Pacific | Amber | The Philippines has no comprehensive statutory taxonomy for crypto-assets distinguishing security tokens, utility tokens, stablecoins, or NFTs. The SEC's 2023 draft rules under the Financial Products… | Profile →Brief |
| Poland (PL) | Europe | Amber | MiCA's EU-level taxonomy (asset-referenced tokens, e-money tokens, other crypto-assets/utility tokens, and NFT carve-outs) is directly applicable law in Poland as an EU Regulation, but absent a… | Profile →Brief |
| Portugal (PT) | Europe | Green | Portugal applies the MiCA taxonomy directly as an EU regulation: e-money tokens (EMT) and asset-referenced tokens (ART) are subject to issuer authorisation by Banco de Portugal; 'other' crypto-assets… | Profile →Brief |
| Qatar (QA) | Middle East | Amber | The QFC Digital Assets Framework introduces a 'Permitted Tokens' taxonomy covering tokens representing electronic money, fiat currencies, and tokens allowing access to goods or services, alongside a… | Profile →Brief |
| Quebec, Canada (CA-QC) | Americas | Amber | Canada does not classify bitcoin or similar cryptocurrencies as securities in themselves, but the CSA has created the 'crypto contract' concept whereby a customer's claim to crypto held by a platform… | Profile →Brief |
| Rhode Island, USA (US-RI) | Americas | Amber | Rhode Island does not operate a state-level token-taxonomy or classification regime. Whether a given token is a security, commodity, or other instrument is governed exclusively by federal law… | Profile →Brief |
| Romania (RO) | Europe | Amber | MiCA's own-force definitions (asset-referenced tokens, e-money tokens, and other crypto-assets) apply directly and uniformly in Romania as in all EU Member States without need for national… | Profile →Brief |
| Russia (RU) | Europe | Amber | Russian law distinguishes 'digital financial assets' (DFAs) — an investment instrument under FZ-259 (2020) carrying statutory investor protections akin to a security — from 'digital currency'… | Profile →Brief |
| Rwanda (RW) | Africa | Amber | The law does not adopt an EU-MiCA-style ART/EMT taxonomy; instead it defines 'virtual asset' broadly while expressly carving out fiat currencies (including the Rwandan Franc), algorithmic… | Profile →Brief |
| Saudi Arabia (SA) | Middle East | Amber | No statutory taxonomy distinguishing security tokens, e-money/asset-referenced tokens, stablecoins, utility tokens or NFTs has been published. Any security-like token would presumably be assessed… | Profile →Brief |
| Senegal (SN) | Africa | Red | Neither BCEAO nor Senegalese national law has published a binding taxonomy distinguishing token categories (security token, e-money token, asset-referenced token, utility token, stablecoin, NFT).… | Profile →Brief |
| Serbia (RS) | Europe | Amber | The Law on Digital Assets recognises two statutory categories — virtual currencies and digital tokens — plus a residual 'hybrid' category with joint NBS/Securities Commission competence. Digital… | Profile →Brief |
| Seychelles (SC) | Africa | Red | Seychelles has no comprehensive statutory taxonomy for crypto-assets. The only classification with a clear legal basis is for tokenised/digital securities, which fall within the existing… | Profile →Brief |
| Singapore (SG) | Asia-Pacific | Green | MAS applies a technology-neutral, substance-over-form 'look-through' approach: tokens with capital-markets characteristics are regulated as securities under the SFA; tokens meeting the PS Act's… | Profile →Brief |
| Slovakia (SK) | Europe | Green | Slovakia applies the MiCA taxonomy directly: asset-referenced tokens (ARTs) and e-money tokens (EMTs) are subject to dedicated issuer-authorisation regimes (NBS is competent for ART issuer… | Profile →Brief |
| Slovenia (SI) | Europe | Green | MiCA, directly applicable in Slovenia, distinguishes three broad categories of crypto-assets: e-money tokens (EMTs), asset-referenced tokens (ARTs), and other crypto-assets (including utility tokens)… | Profile →Brief |
| South Africa (ZA) | Africa | Amber | South Africa does not operate a MiCA-style granular token taxonomy. Crypto assets are broadly declared a 'financial product' under FAIS, without distinguishing security/utility/e-money sub-types in… | Profile →Brief |
| South Carolina, USA (US-SC) | Americas | Amber | South Carolina has not enacted a state-specific token-classification framework. Characterization of digital assets as securities, commodities, or other regulated instruments for SC-based businesses… | Profile →Brief |
| South Dakota, USA (US-SD) | Americas | Amber | South Dakota has no state-level statute classifying crypto-assets as securities, e-money tokens, or utility tokens; token characterization for securities/commodities purposes is governed by federal… | Profile →Brief |
| South Korea (KR) | Asia-Pacific | Amber | The FSC's 2023 Token Securities Guidelines classify digital assets exhibiting security-like characteristics under the Capital Markets Act; non-security tokens fall under VAUPA as virtual assets. In… | Profile →Brief |
| Spain (ES) | Europe | Green | MiCA establishes three principal categories applicable in Spain — e-money tokens (EMTs), asset-referenced tokens (ARTs), and other crypto-assets (broadly utility tokens) — with NFTs generally… | Profile →Brief |
| Sri Lanka (LK) | Asia-Pacific | Red | CBSL uses the umbrella terms 'virtual currencies' and 'cryptocurrency' without a statutory sub-classification distinguishing security tokens, e-money tokens, asset-referenced tokens, utility tokens… | Profile →Brief |
| Sweden (SE) | Europe | Green | FI applies MiCA's tri-partite token taxonomy (e-money tokens, asset-referenced tokens, and other/utility crypto-assets) and has formally confirmed compliance with ESMA's guidelines delineating the… | Profile →Brief |
| Switzerland (CH) | Europe | Green | FINMA's ICO taxonomy (first issued February 2018) sorts tokens into payment, utility and asset tokens (plus hybrids), which drives whether securities, banking or collective-investment law applies.… | Profile →Brief |
| Taiwan (TW) | Asia-Pacific | Amber | Taiwan's token taxonomy remains AML/securities-driven rather than a bespoke classification statute. Security-token-offering (STO) platforms have been required since 2021 to hold a securities dealer… | Profile →Brief |
| Tanzania (TZ) | Africa | Amber | Tanzania has no crypto-specific token taxonomy. The CMSA retains general statutory authority under the Capital Markets and Securities Act (Cap. 79) to characterise instruments, including tokens, that… | Profile →Brief |
| Tennessee, USA (US-TN) | Americas | Amber | Tennessee has no state-level statutory taxonomy classifying crypto-assets as securities, e-money tokens, or utility tokens. Per the seed disambiguation, token characterisation for securities purposes… | Profile →Brief |
| Texas, USA (US-TX) | Americas | Amber | Texas classifies virtual currency for money-transmission purposes based on statutory definitions of 'money'/'monetary value' rather than a bespoke token taxonomy. Sovereign-backed, fully-reserved… | Profile →Brief |
| Thailand (TH) | Asia-Pacific | Amber | Thai law distinguishes 'cryptocurrencies' (payment/exchange-oriented tokens) from 'digital tokens' (investment and utility tokens) under the Emergency Decree, with the SEC determining case-by-case… | Profile →Brief |
| Trinidad and Tobago (TT) | Caribbean | Red | TTSEC has not published guidance applying the Securities Act 2012 definition of 'security' to crypto-assets, and no separate statutory taxonomy (e.g. utility token, e-money token, asset-referenced… | Profile →Brief |
| Tunisia (TN) | Africa | Red | Tunisia has no statute classifying crypto-assets into security-token, e-money-token, asset-referenced-token, stablecoin, utility-token, or NFT categories. The BCT's published legal-framework… | Profile →Brief |
| Turkey (TR) | Europe | Red | Available reporting indicates Turkey's 2024 crypto legislative package defines 'crypto asset' broadly (an intangible, electronically created and stored asset expressible via distributed ledger or… | Profile →Brief |
| Uganda (UG) | Africa | Red | Uganda has not enacted a statutory taxonomy classifying virtual/crypto assets (e.g., utility token, security token, e-money token, stablecoin). The announced six-pillar framework addresses licensing… | Profile →Brief |
| Ukraine (UA) | Europe | Amber | Ukraine's non-operative 2022 law uses a bespoke taxonomy (unsecured vs. secured virtual assets) rather than MiCA's ART/EMT/utility-token categories. Draft law No. 10225-d proposes to move toward a… | Profile →Brief |
| United Arab Emirates (AE) | Middle East | Amber | AE classification differs by regulator: VARA categorizes Virtual Assets into Category 1/2 issuance and a distinct Fiat-Referenced Virtual Asset (FRVA) class; DFSA in DIFC narrowed its stablecoin… | Profile →Brief |
| United Kingdom (UK) | Europe | Amber | Core taxonomy (qualifying cryptoassets, qualifying stablecoins, specified investment cryptoassets) is legislated. Qualifying stablecoins are excluded from the general qualifying cryptoasset… | Profile →Brief |
| United States (US) | Americas | Green | The SEC's March 2026 interpretive release (joined by the CFTC) establishes a token taxonomy distinguishing digital commodities, digital collectibles, digital tools, and payment stablecoins (all… | Profile →Brief |
| United States — California (US-CA) | Americas | Amber | Token classification affecting California is driven primarily by federal law: the SEC's March 2026 interpretive release establishes a taxonomy of digital commodities, digital collectibles, digital… | Profile →Brief |
| United States — New York (US-NY) | Americas | Amber | New York has no standalone statutory token-classification taxonomy; instead, NYDFS operates a supervisory coin-listing/self-certification and 'Greenlist' framework under Part 200 guidance that… | Profile →Brief |
| Uruguay (UY) | Americas | Amber | BCU's non-binding 'Marco conceptual para el tratamiento de Activos Virtuales' categorizes virtual assets by economic substance into: AV de Seguridad (security-like, potentially falling under existing… | Profile →Brief |
| Utah, USA (US-UT) | Americas | Green | Utah classifies digital assets for property and commercial-law purposes rather than through a securities or e-money taxonomy. The Digital Asset Management Act (Title 13 Chapter 62, 2022) splits a… | Profile →Brief |
| Vanuatu (VU) | Asia-Pacific | Red | Vanuatu has not published any statutory or regulatory taxonomy classifying crypto-assets/tokens (security token, e-money token, asset-referenced token, utility token, stablecoin, NFT). The only… | Profile →Brief |
| Venezuela (VE) | Americas | Red | Venezuela's principal statutorily-defined token was the Petro (PTR), a state-issued, oil-reserve-referenced digital currency launched in 2018 under a Constituent Decree approved by the Asamblea… | Profile →Brief |
| Vermont, USA (US-VT) | Americas | Amber | Vermont does not operate a state-level token taxonomy. Token characterisation as a security or commodity is governed federally (SEC/CFTC, applying the Howey test and 2026 SEC interpretive guidance… | Profile →Brief |
| Vietnam (VN) | Asia-Pacific | Amber | The Digital Technology Industry Law (effective 2026-01-01) is the first Vietnamese statute to formally classify crypto/digital assets, dividing them into virtual assets and crypto assets, and further… | Profile →Brief |
| Virginia, USA (US-VA) | Americas | Amber | Virginia does not independently classify crypto-asset tokens; characterization is governed at the federal level. In March 2026, the SEC and CFTC jointly issued a Commission-level interpretive release… | Profile →Brief |
| Washington State, USA (US-WA) | Americas | Amber | Washington has no state-level token classification framework. Whether a given crypto asset is a security, commodity, or other instrument is determined at the federal level by the SEC and CFTC (see US… | Profile →Brief |
| West Virginia, USA (US-WV) | Americas | Amber | West Virginia has no state-level crypto token taxonomy. Token characterisation for securities purposes is governed by federal SEC/CFTC jurisdiction, applied uniformly regardless of state MTL… | Profile →Brief |
| Wisconsin, USA (US-WI) | Americas | Amber | 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… | Profile →Brief |
| Wyoming, USA (US-WY) | Americas | Amber | Wyoming's statutory taxonomy is narrow but binding: a 2018 carve-out defines and exempts 'utility tokens' sold for consumptive purpose from securities law, and the 2023 Stable Token Act creates a… | Profile →Brief |
| Zambia (ZM) | Africa | Red | Zambia has no statutory or regulatory taxonomy classifying crypto-assets (e.g., security token, e-money token, asset-referenced token, utility token, stablecoin, NFT). The only settled legal position… | Profile →Brief |