Tennessee has no bespoke crypto-asset licensing statute. Virtual-currency exchange and custody businesses fall under the state's general Money Transmitter licensing regime administered via NMLS, per the seed disambiguation. Separately, in April 2026 Tennessee enacted a targeted prohibition on virtual-currency kiosks (crypto ATMs) statewide, and its Sports Wagering Council has separately asserted that crypto-linked prediction-market platforms are engaging in unlicensed gambling. This mix of a general licensing backstop, a hard-ban carve-out for kiosks, and contested enforcement against event-contract platforms produces a fragmented, actively-shifting licensing posture.
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.
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 is governed by federal SEC/CFTC jurisdiction, not a Tennessee-specific scheme. Tennessee's 2018 law recognizing blockchain data and smart contracts as legally valid records provides a narrow, adjacent form of legal recognition but does not constitute a token classification regime.
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 Tennessee-specific statute or regulation governing staking, DeFi lending, DEX operation, mining, node operation, validator activity, or tokenization has been identified. The one Tennessee nexus in this space is procedural/venue-related: a federal tax dispute over Tezos staking-reward taxation (Jarrett v. United States) was litigated in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, but this is a federal tax matter, not a Tennessee on-chain-activity regulation, and produced no binding precedent because the case was resolved via IRS refund rather than judicial ruling.
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.
Tennessee has not enacted a state-specific stablecoin authorization, reserve, redemption, or systemic-designation regime. Stablecoin issuance and reserve requirements in this jurisdiction are governed exclusively by the federal GENIUS Act framework; Tennessee has no independent state-level overlay 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.
Tennessee's principal crypto-specific consumer-protection intervention is the statewide ban on virtual-currency kiosks (HB 2505, effective July 1, 2026), enacted directly in response to elder-fraud and scam losses associated with crypto ATMs, which nationally totaled roughly $389 million in reported losses in 2025 according to FBI data cited in reporting. Beyond the kiosk ban, no broader Tennessee-specific statute mandating crypto risk disclosure, custody segregation, or complaint-handling for exchanges/custodians has been identified; such matters would default to general state consumer-protection and money-transmitter licensing 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.
Tennessee is one of the U.S. states with no state personal income tax, meaning no state-level capital gains tax applies to individual crypto-asset gains; state tax exposure on crypto transactions is effectively nil, though federal capital-gains and income-tax rules (IRS treatment of crypto as property) apply uniformly regardless of state. A notable federal tax dispute over the taxability of proof-of-stake rewards was litigated in the Middle District of Tennessee (Jarrett v. United States) but was resolved via IRS refund without a precedential ruling, leaving the federal question of staking-reward timing unresolved.
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 Tennessee-specific statute restricting outbound crypto-asset transfers, imposing state-level cross-border reporting thresholds, or extending the travel rule beyond federal requirements has been identified. Federal OFAC sanctions-screening and FinCEN's funds/travel-rule obligations apply uniformly to Tennessee-domiciled money transmitters engaged in convertible-virtual-currency transactions, without a distinct state overlay.
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.
Crypto AML/CFT obligations for this jurisdiction are handled under the fleet's shared Financial Integrity Module (FIM) subscription for aml_ctf; per the module-subscription reminder, no aml_cft_regime claims are produced in this baseline. Disambiguation context only: federal FinCEN money-transmitter/MSB obligations (registration, recordkeeping, SAR/CTR reporting, travel rule) apply uniformly to Tennessee-based virtual-currency businesses absent any state-specific AML overlay.
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)
T?source not recordedM1non-binding
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 – Tennessee
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.