Nevada has no bespoke crypto-exchange or virtual-currency licence. Exchange, transfer and kiosk activity generally falls under the general money-transmitter licence (NRS Chapter 671), administered by the Nevada Financial Institutions Division (NFID/FID) via NMLS. Entities proposing to act as digital-asset custodians may instead be regulated as a trust company under NRS Chapter 669. A 2019 attempt (S.B. 195) to create a dedicated virtual-currency licensing statute failed to pass, and NFID resumed licensing under Chapter 671 by business-model determination.
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.
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 virtual-currency activity are asked, as part of licensing disclosure, whether they have obtained an opinion from the Nevada Securities Division or other securities regulators on their business model, but no dedicated Nevada crypto-classification guidance was identified. Per federal/state division of authority, token characterisation (security vs. commodity vs. other) is governed by federal SEC/CFTC frameworks regardless of Nevada's money-transmission licensing 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.
Nevada's 2017 blockchain statutes (enacted via S.B. 398, codified in NRS Chapter 719) and 2019 amendments (S.B. 162, S.B. 163) establish legal recognition for smart contracts, blockchain records and public-blockchain-certified documents, and bar local governments from taxing or restricting blockchain use. These are enabling/legal-recognition statutes, not activity-licensing regimes: Nevada has no dedicated licensing or supervisory framework specific to staking, DeFi lending, DEX operation, mining, node operation, or validator activity.
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.
Nevada has no bespoke state-level stablecoin issuance, reserve, redemption, disclosure, or systemic-designation regime. Stablecoin-adjacent custody activity has historically been conducted in Nevada under the NRS Chapter 669 trust-company licence (e.g., Prime Trust, LLC), but this is a general fiduciary/trust framework, not a stablecoin-specific statute, and stablecoin issuer regulation is otherwise a federal-level matter.
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.
Nevada consumer protection for crypto activity relies on general NRS 671 (money transmission) and NRS 669 (trust company) custodial-account and bonding requirements, enforced through NFID examination and enforcement powers, rather than a bespoke crypto consumer-protection statute. The Division's 2023 cease-and-desist order and subsequent receivership petition against crypto custodian Prime Trust, LLC — for failing to safeguard customer assets and meet withdrawal requests — is the leading enforcement precedent evidencing how existing trust-law fiduciary duties are applied to crypto custodians. Nevada has not enacted a dedicated crypto-kiosk fraud-warning/disclosure statute of the type since adopted in some other states.
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.
Nevada research did not surface a dedicated state-level statute or Department of Taxation guidance specifically addressing crypto-asset income tax, capital gains, VAT/sales tax, withholding, or reporting obligations. The one crypto-adjacent tax measure identified is a 2019 bill (S.B. 164) that defined virtual currencies as intangible personal property and thereby exempted them from personal property taxation — a category not represented in this module's declared enum, so it is recorded here as context rather than as a categorized claim. All five declared tax categories are flagged as research gaps pending confirmation from the Nevada Department of Taxation.
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.
Nevada money-transmitter licensees register through the Nationwide Multistate Licensing System (NMLS), which supports cross-state licensee verification, but Nevada does not appear to impose additional state-level rules on international/cross-border crypto transfers beyond the federal AML/sanctions and travel-rule framework (handled outside this baseline via FIM subscription). No Nevada-specific outbound-restriction, sanctions-nexus, reporting-threshold, or cross-border travel-rule statute was identified.
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.
AML/CFT obligations for crypto businesses in the United States (including Nevada-licensed money transmitters and trust companies) are governed at the federal level (BSA/FinCEN registration, SAR filing, travel rule) and are handled by the FIM aml_ctf module subscription rather than by this baseline. No aml_cft_regime claims are produced here per module-subscription doctrine; state-level AML supervisory overlay (NFID examination authority over Chapter 671 licensees) is noted only as disambiguation context, not as an independent claim set.
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 – Nevada
Field
Value
trust.lawyer_review.status
never_reviewed
trust.lawyer_review.reviewer
not recorded
trust.content_source
ai_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.