Cryptoassets Regulatory Intelligence cryptoassets.gi
US-WI v13.3.0
content: ai_generated legal review: never_reviewed (informational) publication gate: 0 failing9 sources retrieved model claude-sonnet-5 · 2026-08-06

Wisconsin, USA

US-WI schema crypto-v2.0.0 trajectory: not yet assessedin transitionoverlaps: Advennt, WPM

Last updated · 9 categories · 15 sourced findings · 16 sources in the cumulative register

9Categoriesbaseline.
15Findings.claims[]
4Tier-1 sourcesrun_metadata.t1_source_count
Confidence mix (sums to 9 rendered categories; click to filter)
No categories moved this cycle.

United States federal law that applies in Wisconsin, USA is covered once, on the United States page. This page covers Wisconsin, USA’s own layer: its own law, regulators and enforcement.

Jurisdiction lead brief

Latest update · 11 October 2026

Lead Signal

Wisconsin's crypto regulatory picture this cycle is dominated by the operative effect of 2025 Wisconsin Act 226, which created Wis. Stat. 217.12, a kiosk-specific sub-regime nested inside the state's existing Chapter 217 money-transmitter licensing framework. The statute requires that no person operate a virtual currency kiosk in Wisconsin without holding a money-transmitter licence under Chapter 217, closing what had been a gap for kiosk operators who might otherwise have argued their activity fell outside existing licensing categories. The Act layers kiosk-specific consumer-protection duties onto that licensing requirement: operators must affix a printed fraud warning and display it electronically before any other disclosure, and the customer must affirmatively acknowledge that warning before a transaction can proceed. A customer who is defrauded via a kiosk transaction may obtain a full refund, including fees, provided the fraud is reported to both the operator and a law-enforcement or government agency within thirty days.

9 of 9 categories
Signal
Density

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

#

Wisconsin has no bespoke crypto-asset licensing statute. Virtual-currency exchange, custody and money-transmission activity is captured under Wisconsin's general money-transmitter licensing regime, administered by the Wisconsin Department of Financial Institutions (DFI) and processed through the multistate NMLS infrastructure used by most U.S. states. Separately, Wisconsin has moved aggressively against prediction-market platforms (several of which are crypto-native exchanges) on the theory that their 'event contracts' constitute unlicensed gambling under state law, triggering a direct federal preemption fight with the CFTC.

Standing sub-brief · as of 25 August 2026217 words · last cycle 2026-10-18

Crypto Licensing

Wisconsin's 2025 Act 226 creates a new licensable activity class for virtual currency kiosk operation under Wis. Stat. §217.12, effective April 9, 2026. Kiosk operators must now hold the relevant licensure or registration and comply with the statute's transaction, disclosure, and refund requirements, placing this narrow category of crypto-adjacent activity inside Wisconsin's existing Chapter 217 money-transmission licensing architecture for the first time. The primary framework remains Wis. Stat. Ch. 217 generally, with §217.12 as the kiosk-specific overlay, and the supervisory authority is the Wisconsin Department of Financial Institutions, Division of Banking.

Periodic update · new data 2026-10-11

Crypto Licensing

Wisconsin's crypto licensing framework tightened materially this cycle with the operative effect of 2025 Wisconsin Act 226, codified at Wis. Stat. 217.12. The statute is unambiguous on its central point: no person may operate a virtual currency kiosk in Wisconsin unless licensed under Chapter 217 as a money transmitter. This brings kiosk operation explicitly and specifically within the state's existing money-transmission licensing perimeter, closing a category that had previously been addressed only by the general money-transmission framework rather than a kiosk-specific provision. The requirement sits atop the pre-existing Chapter 217 structure established by the Money Transmission Modernization Act (2023 Wisconsin Act 267), which took effect 1 January 2025 and already extended Wisconsin's money-transmission licensing requirement to out-of-state entities, including crypto businesses, that provide services to Wisconsin residents without maintaining a physical presence in the state. That extension ended what had previously been a physical-presence-only interpretation of the licensing requirement, meaning a kiosk operator or remote crypto money-transmission provider cannot avoid Wisconsin licensure simply by lacking a Wisconsin office.

The Wisconsin Department of Financial Institutions, as the administering authority, has stated that it is unable to issue company-specific safe-harbor or no-action letters addressing whether a particular business's activities require licensure under this framework. This means an operator assessing whether its specific model triggers the Chapter 217 licensing requirement cannot obtain individualised regulatory pre-clearance and must instead rely on the statutory text and general guidance. Unlicensed operation exposes a business to civil penalties, cease-and-desist action, and joint-and-several liability where the operator works through unlicensed or non-exempt delegates, though the precise statutory civil-penalty dollar figure was not located this cycle and remains a gap in the record.

Outlook

The principal item to watch is whether the Department of Financial Institutions issues implementing guidance specific to the Act 226 kiosk provisions, which would convert the current statutory baseline into an operative supervisory standard with clearer compliance expectations for kiosk operators. Absent such guidance, operators remain reliant on the bare statutory text and the Department's general money-transmitter licensing practice.

1 earlier distinct update(s)
Periodic update · new data 2026-09-28

Crypto Licensing

Wisconsin's crypto licensing architecture is built entirely on the state's general money-transmission framework, with a newly created kiosk-specific sub-track layered on top this cycle. The foundational requirement, confirmed directly from the Wisconsin Department of Financial Institutions' own guidance, is that virtual currency exchange and custody businesses operating in the state must hold a money-transmitter licence under Wis. Stat. Chapter 217, in force since the January 1, 2025 effective date of 2023 Act 267's recreation of that chapter. No bespoke crypto-exchange licence category exists separately from the general money-transmitter licence; a crypto business is licensed the same way a traditional money-transmission business is licensed, under the same statutory chapter and administered by the same regulator.

The material development this cycle is 2025 Act 226, enacted April 8, 2026 and effective April 10, 2026, which creates a kiosk-specific licensing sub-track under Wis. Stat. 217.12. Any person operating a virtual currency kiosk in Wisconsin must be licensed as a money transmitter, and the statute layers kiosk-specific conditions onto that base licence requirement. This is a confirmed, in-force, binding requirement, sourced directly from the Wisconsin State Legislature's statutory text.

The supervisory authority for both the general licence and the kiosk sub-track is the Wisconsin Department of Financial Institutions, Division of Banking, operating through the Nationwide Multistate Licensing System. The overall licensing posture on this module is assessed as tightening: the general pathway was already settled, but the kiosk sub-track represents a targeted expansion of that pathway's conditions specifically for the kiosk transaction channel. What remains unconfirmed is whether the Division of Banking has issued or will issue administrative rules under DFI-Bkg 79 that go beyond the bare statutory text of Act 226 to specify implementation detail; this is an open research gap rather than a settled negative finding.

For an operator evaluating Wisconsin, the practical upshot is that entry into virtual currency kiosk operation requires the same money-transmitter licence any other money-transmission business would need, plus compliance with the kiosk-specific conditions Act 226 attaches to that licence. There is no parallel, lighter-touch pathway available for kiosk operators; the licence is the same Chapter 217 instrument used across Wisconsin's money-transmission regulatory perimeter generally.

Outlook

The open question for the coming cycle is whether the Division of Banking issues administrative rules under DFI-Bkg 79 that add operational detail beyond Act 226's statutory text, since this would clarify the practical compliance burden on kiosk operators beyond what the statute itself specifies. Confirmation of this rulemaking status was not available this cycle and remains a tracked gap.

1 further periodic run re-emitted the standing brief unchanged and is not shown.

Sources and findings (3)
  1. T1 · Nationwide Multistate Licensing System / State Regulatory Registry LLCNationwide Multistate Licensing System / State Regulatory Registry LLC — Virtual-currency exchange, custody, and transmission businesses operating in Wisconsin are subject to the state's general money-transmitter licensing law, administered by the state banking/financial-institutions department and processed through NMLS, in the absence of any Wisconsin-specific crypto licensing statute.retrieved M4bindingin force
  2. T3 · CoinDeskCoinDesk — Wisconsin has filed civil suits characterizing prediction-market 'event contracts' offered by crypto-linked platforms (including Crypto.com, Coinbase, Robinhood, Polymarket, and Kalshi) as unlicensed gambling under state law, asserting state jurisdiction over these products.retrieved M4non-binding
  3. T1 · U.S. Commodity Futures Trading CommissionU.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission — The CFTC has sued Wisconsin to reaffirm exclusive federal jurisdiction over event-contract/prediction-market products traded on CFTC-designated contract markets, directly contesting Wisconsin's state-law gambling characterization of these crypto-adjacent platforms.retrieved M5non-binding

#

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 coordination with the CFTC), most recently through the SEC's March 2026 interpretive release establishing a five-category taxonomy (digital commodities, digital collectibles, digital tools, stablecoins, digital securities) and its January 2026 statement on tokenized securities.

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 on record for this sub-brief

Sources and findings (3)
  1. T1 · U.S. Securities and Exchange CommissionU.S. Securities and Exchange Commission — The SEC's 2026 interpretive release classifies crypto assets into five categories based on characteristics, uses, and functions: digital commodities, digital collectibles, digital tools, stablecoins, and digital securities, with digital commodities, collectibles, and tools not themselves treated as securities.retrieved M5non-binding
  2. T2 · U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (Division of Corporation Finance et al.)U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (Division of Corporation Finance et al.) — A tokenized security is a financial instrument that meets the definition of a security under federal securities laws and is formatted as or represented by a crypto asset, with the record of ownership maintained in whole or in part on one or more crypto networks.retrieved M4non-binding
  3. T2 · U.S. Securities and Exchange CommissionU.S. Securities and Exchange Commission — Under the SEC's 2026 taxonomy, a payment stablecoin used as a means of payment or settlement is generally not treated as a security, subject to the terms of the GENIUS Act, though non-payment stablecoins may still meet the definition of a security depending on facts and circumstances.retrieved M4non-binding

#

Wisconsin has not enacted any state-specific licensing or regulatory regime for on-chain activities such as staking, DeFi lending, mining, node operation, or validation. Federal characterization (SEC/CFTC) of the underlying digital commodity governs most substantive treatment; state money-transmitter law may incidentally apply only if an activity involves custodial transmission of value.

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 on record for this sub-brief

Sources and findings (1)
  1. T1 · Nationwide Multistate Licensing System / State Regulatory Registry LLCNationwide Multistate Licensing System / State Regulatory Registry LLC — No Wisconsin-specific statute or DFI rule imposing licensing or registration requirements on virtual-currency mining, staking, validation, or node-operation activity has been identified as of this research pass.retrieved M2non-bindingour coverage gap, expected to resolve on a re-run

#

Wisconsin has no state-level stablecoin issuance, reserve, or redemption regime. Stablecoin treatment is governed federally by the GENIUS Act framework referenced in the SEC's 2026 crypto-asset interpretation, under which payment stablecoins issued by permitted issuers are categorically excluded from the securities definition once the Act is effective.

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 on record for this sub-brief

Sources and findings (2)
  1. T1 · U.S. Securities and Exchange CommissionU.S. Securities and Exchange Commission — Payment stablecoins issued to permitted stablecoin holders in connection with holding, use, or retention of the stablecoin will categorically not be securities by operation of statute after the GENIUS Act's effective date, per the SEC's 2026 interpretive release.retrieved M4non-binding
  2. T1 · U.S. Securities and Exchange CommissionU.S. Securities and Exchange Commission — No Wisconsin-specific reserve, redemption-right, or systemic-designation regime for stablecoin issuers has been identified; the state defers entirely to the federal GENIUS Act framework.retrieved M3non-bindinga fact about the regime

#

Investor-protection outreach for Wisconsin crypto/digital-asset investors runs primarily through the Wisconsin DFI's Securities Division in coordination with the SEC and NASAA, rather than through any crypto-specific consumer-protection statute. No Wisconsin-specific crypto marketing-restriction, custody-segregation, or suitability rule distinct from general securities/MTL consumer-protection law has been identified.

Standing sub-brief · as of 25 August 2026173 words · last cycle 2026-10-18

Consumer Protection

Since April 9, 2026, Wisconsin's virtual currency kiosk operators have been required to affix a statutorily prescribed fraud-alert warning and obtain customer acknowledgment before each transaction under 2025 Wisconsin Act 226. The same statute requires kiosk operators to refund the full transaction amount to a customer who reports a transaction as fraudulent to law enforcement within 30 days. Both obligations sit inside Wis. Stat. §217.12 and are administered by the Wisconsin Department of Financial Institutions, Division of Banking, alongside the kiosk-licensing requirement itself.

Periodic update · new data 2026-10-11

Consumer Protection

2025 Wisconsin Act 226 introduced two specific, newly in-force consumer-protection mechanisms for virtual currency kiosk transactions under Wis. Stat. 217.12(3)(a)-(b) and 217.12(6). The first is a disclosure-sequencing requirement: a kiosk operator must affix a printed fraud warning to the machine and display that warning electronically before any other disclosure is shown to the customer, and the customer must affirmatively acknowledge the warning before the transaction can proceed. This places the fraud warning ahead of any other information presented at the point of transaction, rather than as a secondary or buried disclosure. The second mechanism is a refund right: a customer who is defrauded through a kiosk transaction may obtain a full refund, including any fees charged, provided the fraud is reported to both the kiosk operator and a law-enforcement or other government agency within thirty days of the transaction. Both provisions are in force as of the statute's effective date and were not previously part of Wisconsin's regulatory framework for this product category.

These provisions were enacted against a backdrop of reported harm: investigative reporting has characterised crypto-ATM fraud as a significant consumer-harm pattern in Wisconsin, which the legislature appears to have been responding to directly with the fraud-warning and refund mechanisms. The thirty-day reporting window is the operative constraint on the refund right: a customer who delays reporting beyond that window, even where fraud genuinely occurred, falls outside the statutory entitlement to a full refund under this provision, though other legal remedies may remain available outside this specific mechanism.

Outlook

The practical operation of the thirty-day reporting window and the fraud-warning acknowledgment mechanism will depend on how kiosk operators implement the acknowledgment step and how consistently law-enforcement and government agencies process the reports that trigger refund eligibility. No supervisory guidance on implementation specifics had been identified as of this cycle.

1 earlier distinct update(s)
Periodic update · new data 2026-09-28

Consumer Protection

Wisconsin's consumer-protection posture for virtual currency kiosks tightened materially this cycle with the enactment of 2025 Act 226, effective April 10, 2026. The statute creates three specific, binding consumer protections applicable to kiosk operators. First, operators must display a statutorily worded FRAUD ALERT warning, both physically at the kiosk and electronically, and the customer must acknowledge that warning before the transaction is permitted to proceed. This is a confirmed, in-force requirement sourced directly from the statutory text retrieved from the Wisconsin State Legislature.

Second, kiosk operators must verify a customer's identity before that customer's initial transaction, establishing a know-your-customer checkpoint specific to the kiosk channel. Third, and confirmed via trade-press reporting on the statute's provisions, kiosk operators are prohibited from accepting from or dispensing to a single customer more than $1,000 in total per day, a daily transaction cap designed to limit the exposure of any individual customer to kiosk-facilitated fraud in a single day.

These three protections apply specifically to the kiosk transaction channel and sit on top of, rather than replace, the underlying money-transmitter licensing requirement under Chapter 217 that already governed virtual currency businesses generally. The Department of Financial Institutions, Division of Banking is the supervisory authority for these requirements, consistent with its role as licensor of the underlying money-transmission activity.

The assessed posture on this module is a clear tightening: these are new, specific, binding consumer protections directly retrieved from statutory text, not aspirational guidance or a proposal still in process. For an operator running or partnering with a kiosk network in Wisconsin, the FRAUD ALERT acknowledgement flow, the pre-transaction identity check, and the $1,000 daily cap are now operational requirements that must be built into the transaction flow, not future compliance items to plan toward.

Outlook

The practical implementation of these consumer protections, particularly whether the Division of Banking issues supplementary guidance specifying the exact form or delivery mechanism for the FRAUD ALERT disclosure, remains to be confirmed in a subsequent cycle. No indication of a further legislative change to these thresholds was identified this cycle.

1 further periodic run re-emitted the standing brief unchanged and is not shown.

Sources and findings (1)
  1. T1 · U.S. Securities and Exchange CommissionU.S. Securities and Exchange Commission — The Wisconsin DFI Securities Division has partnered with the SEC and NASAA on investor-protection roundtables aimed at strengthening investor advocacy for Wisconsin investors, including exposure to investment products and services more broadly (not crypto-exclusive).retrieved M2non-binding

#

Wisconsin's crypto tax treatment is expected to follow the federal income-tax baseline (crypto as property, capital-gains treatment on disposition) because Wisconsin's individual income tax generally conforms to federal adjusted gross income definitions; however, no Wisconsin Department of Revenue-specific crypto guidance was independently verified in this pass, so state-conformity claims carry lower confidence than the underlying federal claims.

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 on record for this sub-brief

Sources and findings (3)
  1. T3 · CoinDeskCoinDesk — The IRS has treated cryptocurrency as property rather than currency for federal tax purposes, meaning sales and exchanges are treated as taxable events for capital-gains purposes.retrieved M4bindingin force
  2. T4 · The BlockThe Block — Starting with the 2025 tax year, crypto brokers such as Coinbase and Kraken began issuing Form 1099-DA reporting gross proceeds from digital-asset dispositions to both customers and the IRS, with broker-reported cost basis beginning in the 2026 tax year.retrieved M4bindingin force
  3. T3 · CoinDeskCoinDesk — Whether Wisconsin's individual income tax treats crypto gains identically to the federal property characterization via state conformity to federal AGI has not been independently confirmed against Wisconsin Department of Revenue primary guidance in this research pass.retrieved M3non-bindingour coverage gap, expected to resolve on a re-run

#

Wisconsin has no state-specific cross-border crypto transfer regime; outbound-restriction, sanctions-nexus, and travel-rule obligations affecting cross-border crypto transfers are governed exclusively at the federal level (OFAC sanctions, FinCEN travel rule), consistent with the state's lack of a bespoke crypto statute.

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 on record for this sub-brief

Sources and findings (1)
  1. T1 · Nationwide Multistate Licensing System / State Regulatory Registry LLCNationwide Multistate Licensing System / State Regulatory Registry LLC — No Wisconsin-specific cross-border crypto transfer restriction, reporting threshold, or travel-rule provision distinct from the federal FinCEN/OFAC framework has been identified.retrieved M2non-bindinga fact about the regime

#

Crypto AML/CFT obligations are subscribed from the fleet's Financial Integrity Monitor (FIM) module and are not re-baselined here per the F9 subscription rule. Any AML-relevant material found (e.g., FinCEN money-transmitter/exchanger characterization of virtual-currency businesses) is captured only as disambiguation context: federal FinCEN treatment of virtual-currency exchangers/administrators as money transmitters subject to BSA registration is the operative federal backdrop against which Wisconsin's state MTL regime sits, but substantive AML/CFT claims belong to the FIM baseline, not this crypto baseline.

Rules for crypto-asset service providers · from Sentinel.gi · verified 2026-07-05
  • Wis. Stat. 217.12(2) — No person may operate virtual currency kiosks in Wisconsin unless licensed as a money transmitter under Chapter 217. (in force) source, 2026-04-08
  • Wis. Stat. 217.12(4) — Operators must verify a customer's identity with government ID before an initial transaction and re-verify with photograph on each subsequent transaction. (in force) source, 2026-04-08

Not yet covered by Sentinel.gi for this jurisdiction: suspicious transaction reporting for CASPs: recipient FIUs, deadlines, consent or moratorium periods, account freezes, suspension duties and recognition criteria; sanctions asset freezes as distinct from AML reporting, sectoral crypto-service bans, designation list sources and crypto-relevant designations; travel rule obligations: thresholds and currency, data sets, self-hosted wallet tests, binding status of guidance and repeated-failure reporting channels; prohibitions on anonymous accounts and anonymity-enhancing assets and their application dates; recent changes to crypto-transfer AML instruments, including revocations and replacements.

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 on record for this sub-brief

#

## Commercial Activity Bitcoin Depot Inc., a crypto-kiosk operator with machines in Wisconsin among other states, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on 18 May 2026 in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas. The company reported assets of $11.3 million against liabilities of $26.9 million as of 31 March 2026. Reporting on the filing attributes it in part to the compliance burden created by state-level transaction-limit and licensing regimes of the type Wisconsin has now enacted under Act 226, positioning Wisconsin's new kiosk-specific sub-regime as one instance of a broader multi-state regulatory tightening pattern bearing on kiosk-operator economics. This is a commercial insolvency event rather than a Wisconsin-specific regulatory enforcement action, and no regulatory review was identified as applicable to this particular event type. The company's state of incorporation and the specific number or location of its Wisconsin kiosks were not confirmed this cycle, leaving the precise scale of the Wisconsin-specific exposure from this filing an open question. What is established is that a company operating in the Wisconsin kiosk market has entered bankruptcy proceedings amid a national pattern of state-level tightening that Wisconsin's own Act 226 now forms part of. ## Outlook Whether other Wisconsin-facing kiosk operators face similar financial pressure under the new Chapter 217.12 compliance obligations, and whether this creates a consolidation opportunity for better-capitalised or more compliance-ready competitors in the Wisconsin kiosk market, are the principal commercial developments to watch following this filing.

No new data since the standing brief. 1 periodic run re-emitted it unchanged.

Sources and findings (1)
  1. T2Bitcoin Depot Inc. — Filed for Chapter 11 protection 18 May 2026 in S.D. Texas, reporting $11.3M assets / $26.9M liabilities as of 31 Mar 2026; operated kiosks in Wisconsin among other states and cited state-level transaction-limit/licensing regimes as a driverretrieved M3non-bindingnew
No categories match.

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

Publication gate

No failing checks.

schema_validpass
min_quoted_text_presentwaived — floor 0%
egress_verifiedpass
every_practical_object_has_source_idn/a — no subject in this jurisdiction
source_tier_integrity_okpass
jurisdiction_source_floor_metpass
tier_a_b_national_primary_pct66.67
aggregator_only_jurisdiction_count0
manual_override

Editorial metadata

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

Editorial metadata for Wisconsin, USA
FieldValue
trust.lawyer_review.statusnever_reviewed
trust.lawyer_review.reviewerno reviewer on record
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 2026-10-20. 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; 9 module(s), 15 finding(s), 16 source(s) in the cumulative register.

Think something on this page is wrong? Report an error.