Switzerland: Consumer Protection

Substantively, these provisions give crypto-asset holders custodied through a Swiss institution a statutory basis for having their assets segregated from that custodian's bankruptcy estate in the event of its insolvency -- a foundational consumer-protection safeguard for anyone holding crypto assets through a regulated Swiss custodian rather than self-custodying. That the underlying legal position was correct in substance throughout the intervening years, and only this record's characterisation was stale, is itself worth noting: this was a data-fidelity correction, not a change in the law.

Separately, FINMA's ICO enquiry framework requires issuers to provide sufficient information -- for example, on token function and rights -- as part of its case-by-case regulatory assessment of proposed token offerings. This operates as a disclosure mechanism embedded in the classification process itself (see token_classification) rather than as a codified, freestanding disclosure statute, and remains an active, unchanged feature of FINMA's practice.

Outlook

With the custody-segregation correction now applied, this module's confidence in its two evidenced categories -- custody segregation and disclosure via the ICO enquiry process -- is reasonably solid. However, several consumer-protection categories remain unconfirmed by direct sourced evidence this cycle: marketing restrictions, complaint-handling mechanisms, and suitability assessments for retail crypto products were not independently evidenced. A future cycle should prioritise direct research into these categories rather than assuming FINMA's broader consumer-protection posture mirrors the custody and disclosure findings already established here. Ideally, a future cycle would also confirm the DEBA correction against the current fedlex.admin.ch statutory text directly, rather than relying solely on secondary legal-monitor and law-firm reporting.