Cryptoassets Regulatory Intelligence cryptoassets.gi
US-WI · run crypto-2026-08-06 v13.3.0
content: ai_generated 9 sources retrieved model claude-sonnet-5 ·

United States – Wisconsin

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

Last updated · 8 categories · 14 sourced findings · 9 sources in the cumulative register

8Categoriesbaseline.
14Findings.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.

#

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.

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 recordedM4non-binding
  3. T?source not recordedM5non-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 recorded against this sub-brief.

Sources and findings (3)
  1. T?source not recordedM5non-binding
  2. T?source not recordedM4non-binding
  3. T?source not recordedM4non-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 recorded against this sub-brief.

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

#

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 recorded against this sub-brief.

Sources and findings (2)
  1. T?source not recordedM4non-binding
  2. T?source not recordedM3non-binding

#

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.

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

#

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 recorded against this sub-brief.

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

#

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 recorded against this sub-brief.

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

#

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.

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 – Wisconsin
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), 14 finding(s), 9 source(s) in the cumulative register.