Cryptoassets Regulatory Intelligence cryptoassets.gi
US-MN · run crypto-2026-08-06 v13.3.0
content: ai_generated 10 sources retrieved model claude-sonnet-5 ·

United States – Minnesota

US-MN schema crypto-v2.0.0 trajectory: not recordedin transitionoverlaps: FIM, WPM

Last updated · 8 categories · 12 sourced findings · 10 sources in the cumulative register

8Categoriesbaseline.
12Findings.claims[]
0Tier-1 sourcesrun_metadata.t1_source_count
Confidence mix (sums to 8 rendered categories; click to filter)
No categories moved this cycle.

Jurisdiction brief

No content recorded at this JID path.

8 of 8 categories
Signal
Density

Selections OR within a group, AND across groups. Press / to search.

#

Minnesota has no bespoke crypto-asset licensing statute distinct from its general money-transmitter law. Crypto exchange/custody businesses fall under Minn. Stat. ch. 53B (money transmitters), administered by the Minnesota Department of Commerce and processed via NMLS. The regulatory landscape shifted materially in 2026: the state's 2024 kiosk registration/disclosure regime was displaced by a statutory ban on virtual-currency kiosks (SF 3868), and a new notification-based pathway (HF 3709) now lets state-chartered banks and credit unions offer crypto custody services, both effective August 1, 2026.

Absence reason not determinableNo sub-brief exists and the JID records no gap or review marker explaining why. The renderer will not invent a reason.

No periodic updates recorded against this sub-brief.

Sources and findings (4)
  1. T?source not recordedM5bindingin force
  2. T?source not recordedM5bindingin force
  3. T?source not recordedM3non-binding
  4. T?source not recordedM4bindingin force

#

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 disambiguation note that state MTL licensing addresses money-transmission/custody, not securities status.

Absence reason not determinableNo sub-brief exists and the JID records no gap or review marker explaining why. The renderer will not invent a reason.

No periodic updates recorded against this sub-brief.

Sources and findings (1)
  1. T?source not recordedM3non-binding

#

No Minnesota-specific statute or regulation addressing staking, DeFi lending, DEX operation, mining, node operation, validating, or tokenization was identified. Such activities are only indirectly implicated to the extent they involve custodial money transmission under Chapter 53B.

Absence reason not determinableNo sub-brief exists and the JID records no gap or review marker explaining why. The renderer will not invent a reason.

No periodic updates recorded against this sub-brief.

Sources and findings (1)
  1. T?source not recordedM2non-binding

#

Minnesota has not established a state-level stablecoin issuance, reserve, or redemption regime. The new bank/credit-union custody law (HF 3709) permits Minnesota-chartered institutions to custody digital assets, which may include stablecoins, but does not itself authorize stablecoin issuance or impose reserve/redemption rules; those remain federally governed.

Absence reason not determinableNo sub-brief exists and the JID records no gap or review marker explaining why. The renderer will not invent a reason.

No periodic updates recorded against this sub-brief.

Sources and findings (1)
  1. T?source not recordedM2non-binding

#

Minnesota consumer protection activity around crypto has intensified in 2026: the new bank/credit-union custody law mandates segregation of customer digital-asset holdings, while the state's now-superseded 2024 kiosk law had required fraud/risk disclosures. The Department of Commerce has been an active complaint-intake body, citing 70 kiosk-related complaints totaling $540,000 in reported losses in the year preceding the kiosk ban, and participates in federal-state crypto-scam awareness campaigns.

Absence reason not determinableNo sub-brief exists and the JID records no gap or review marker explaining why. The renderer will not invent a reason.

No periodic updates recorded against this sub-brief.

Sources and findings (3)
  1. T?source not recordedM4bindingin force
  2. T?source not recordedM2non-binding
  3. T?source not recordedM2non-binding

#

No Minnesota-specific statute or Department of Revenue guidance on crypto-asset taxation was identified in this pass. Minnesota individual income tax generally conforms its base to federal adjusted gross income, which would carry through the federal property-based treatment of virtual currency (IRS Notice 2014-21) absent a state-specific carve-out, but this conformity linkage was not independently verified against a primary Minnesota Department of Revenue source in this run.

Absence reason not determinableNo sub-brief exists and the JID records no gap or review marker explaining why. The renderer will not invent a reason.

No periodic updates recorded against this sub-brief.

Sources and findings (1)
  1. T?source not recordedM2non-binding

#

No Minnesota-specific cross-border virtual-currency transfer restriction, reporting threshold, or travel-rule provision was identified. Cross-border crypto transmission by Minnesota-licensed money transmitters is governed by federal FinCEN Travel Rule and OFAC sanctions regimes rather than state law.

Absence reason not determinableNo sub-brief exists and the JID records no gap or review marker explaining why. The renderer will not invent a reason.

No periodic updates recorded against this sub-brief.

Sources and findings (1)
  1. T?source not recordedM2non-binding

#

This crypto consumer subscribes to the FIM aml_ctf module; AML/CFT claims are not independently produced in this baseline. For disambiguation context only: Minnesota MSB/money-transmitter licensees are also subject to federal FinCEN BSA registration, recordkeeping, and SAR obligations, and FinCEN has separately issued guidance (FIN-2025-NTC1) flagging convertible-virtual-currency kiosks as an illicit-finance risk vector relevant to Minnesota's kiosk ban.

Absence reason not determinableNo sub-brief exists and the JID records no gap or review marker explaining why. The renderer will not invent a reason.

No periodic updates recorded against this sub-brief.

No categories match.

Filters combine as OR inside a group and AND across groups.

Editorial metadata

Provenance only. Nothing below gates publication or affects the render.

Editorial metadata for United States – Minnesota
FieldValue
trust.lawyer_review.statusnever_reviewed
trust.lawyer_review.reviewernot recorded
trust.content_sourceai_generated

Provenance and declared absence

Disclosure model: module cards load OPEN; standing positions render in full; sub-briefs and jurisdiction briefs load as a clamped teaser with an explicit “read full” control carrying the true word count; earlier updates stay collapsed behind a counted summary. No text is hidden without disclosing how much of it there is.

Sentinel-fed modules receive no special rendering treatment. sentinel_feed is an attribution chip only: it does not suppress content, does not generate an absence reason code, and does not exclude the module from any count, filter, search index or export on this page.

Family taxonomy is renderer-level presentation config, not a JID field. Colour is always duplicated in text and is never the sole carrier of meaning.

Suppressed by doctrine: derived risk score; per-module RAG traffic light; derived_scores = {}.

Band honesty: uncertainty bands are computed against a frozen build clock of 2026-08-17. A year-precision row is never promoted into a tighter band.

Orphan deltas: 0 cycle_delta row(s) target non-module objects and are listed in the rail rather than attached to a card.

Envelope: baseline resolved at jurisdiction_json.baseline; 8 module(s), 12 finding(s), 10 source(s) in the cumulative register.