On March 12, 2026, East 8 Time, the UK's Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) will begin the final consultation countdown for 10 regulatory proposals in the field of crypto assets. This milestone is seen as a key point in the UK's crypto regulatory roadmap entering the "mature stage." According to disclosed information, this round of proposals covers five major areas, including business conduct standards, credit purchases, and regulatory reporting, conveying the regulatory body's ambition to reshape market boundaries with comprehensive rules. As part of the UK government's overall crypto roadmap, once this framework is implemented, it will form a parallel dual pivot with the EU's MiCA, rewriting the European crypto financial landscape. The real suspense lies in whether stricter rules will drive "high-risk innovation" out of London or force the emergence of a more transparent, healthier, and more competitive new market.
London Bets on Regulatory Dividends to Compete with the EU
● Roadmap Progression: Since the UK government released its crypto asset roadmap, the policy tone has gradually shifted from "exploring innovation" to "incorporating into the mainstream financial regulatory framework." The FCA's initiation of the final consultation on the 10 proposals marks the transition of regulation from principle discussions to the implementation stage. Requirements previously scattered across different regulations, such as financial services and anti-money laundering, are being consolidated into a systematic regulatory framework for crypto assets, laying the groundwork for market participants to apply for licenses.
● Competitive Path Parallel to MiCA: After the EU's MiCA framework took shape, the UK chose to build a parallel and independent rule system rather than simply copying it. By breaking down crypto assets into modules such as business conduct, credit purchases, and reporting obligations according to financial service logic, London aims to demonstrate its flexibility and "British finesse" in rule design, using regulatory clarity and legal environment stability to hedge against the decline in status after losing the EU single market.
● Official Language and Policy Goals: The FCA emphasized in its statement that the goal of the new framework is to create an "open, sustainable, and competitive crypto market." Behind this slogan-like statement is the regulatory authority's desire to find a middle ground between "protecting consumers and preventing systemic risks" and "leaving space for innovation." Openness means not directly closing the door, sustainability emphasizes long-term stability, and competitiveness directly points to the reality of competing for projects and liquidity with the EU and Asian financial centers.
● Seizing Global Crypto Financial Discourse Power: By "taking a step ahead" in rules, London bets on regulatory dividends—whoever first provides a predictable and enforceable compliance path will have a better chance of becoming a hub for institutional funds and compliant projects. This round of consultation by the FCA is not only about correcting disorderly expansion but also aims to warm up for the future crypto service provider licensing system, allowing London to compete for the interpretation of "what is compliant" in the next global reshuffle of the crypto financial landscape.
Ten Proposals Unveiled: From Sales Pitches to Reporting Obligations
● Overall Coverage of Five Major Areas: According to existing public information, these 10 proposals can be roughly categorized into five regulatory areas, including business conduct standards, credit purchases, and regulatory reporting, forming a closed loop from product design and sales processes to post-reporting. Although specific terms have not yet been disclosed, it can be confirmed that regulation will start from key touchpoints such as "how to communicate with retail investors," "how to record and report," and "how to identify risks in the system," gradually aligning crypto services with the compliance framework of traditional financial services.
● Tightening Retail Marketing and Credit Purchases: On the retail side, the FCA's focus will be on marketing promotions, leverage and credit purchases, and risk disclosures. Strong regulation means that flashy "profit stories" and exaggerated promotions will face higher compliance thresholds, and models that amplify retail positions through credit cards and installment plans will be more restricted or restructured. More detailed risk disclosures and suitability assessment processes may replace the lightweight experience of "opening an account in a few minutes and speculating all in" with more cumbersome compliance procedures.
● Compliance Pressure on Platforms and Custodians: For trading platforms, custodians, and other intermediary institutions, this round of proposals means a significant increase in reporting obligations and compliance review pressures. From the flow of on-chain assets to customer classification and the frequency of reporting potential risk events, these may be elevated to levels comparable to traditional brokers and custodial banks. Platforms will no longer just be "matching trades and collecting fees," but will have to take on the responsibilities of detailed record-keeping, real-time monitoring, and periodic reporting, directly raising operational costs and technical barriers.
● Uncertainty in the Consultation Draft Stage: It is important to emphasize that the FCA has currently published a consultation draft, and many technical details and operational processes have not been made public, with some sensitive terms still subject to negotiation and adjustment. The regulatory body has signaled that it plans to open applications for crypto service provider licenses in September 2026, while also collecting feedback from industry, legal circles, and consumer representatives through this consultation to determine which requirements need to be relaxed and which must be upheld.
DeFi and Issuers: The Code World Pulled Back into Regulatory View
● Regulatory Leverage on Smart Contracts and Front-End Interfaces: Under the new regulatory perspective, DeFi protocols are no longer merely "code with no one responsible," but are viewed as identifiable regulatory entities through smart contract custody logic and front-end interaction interfaces. The FCA is more likely to approach from "who controls the front end, who designs the interaction process, and who sets the fees and settlement rules," treating the front-end operating teams, key administrators, and controllable permissions in custody logic as compliance anchors, pulling the power dynamics hidden in the code back into the legal context.
● Algorithmic Returns as Financial Product Cost Increases: Various algorithmic interest rates, yield aggregators, and on-chain strategies, previously packaged as "protocol rules," are now closer to financial product sales behavior under regulatory standards. Once deemed to be selling complex financial products to the public, a complete set of traditional financial requirements regarding suitability assessments, yield disclosures, stress testing, and risk warnings will migrate over. The result is that the legal and compliance costs for development teams will significantly increase, making the simple "copy code + open front end" lightweight innovation model difficult to continue.
● Reserve and Governance Pressure on Token Issuers: For token issuers that use asset backing as a selling point, as well as other functional or governance tokens, the new framework means ongoing pressure regarding asset reserve information disclosure and governance structure transparency. Regulators will pay more attention to issues such as "whether reserves are real and verifiable," "whether governance is controlled by a few individuals," and "whether there are undisclosed conflicts of interest." Even though specific details have not yet been disclosed, it can be anticipated that issuers will need to undergo more frequent audits, information updates, and governance process disclosures.
● Tension Between Decentralized Narratives and Regulated Identities: Under this logic, the core tension faced by development teams is that while they emphasize "protocol decentralization and no control," they must also provide responsible parties, governance processes, and risk control arrangements in compliance texts. The more decentralized they are, the harder it is to provide clear dialogue partners for regulators; the more they cooperate with regulators, the easier it is to be seen as regulated financial service providers. This structural contradiction will force many teams to redraw lines between technical decentralization and legal responsibility concentration.
Reshuffling the Table: Exchanges Compete with Traditional Institutions
● Choices for Trading Platforms: For domestic UK exchanges and foreign exchanges targeting UK users, the primary question after the new regulations take effect is: apply for a license or scale back operations. Applying means investing significant resources to build local entities, compliance teams, and risk control systems; choosing to withdraw may result in losing an important market concentrated with high-net-worth individuals and institutions. This choice is no longer a simple matter of "cost-effectiveness," but relates to whether they are willing to accept ongoing scrutiny and constraints from the FCA.
● KYC and Asset Segregation Reshaping Profit Models: When KYC reviews, asset segregation, and risk classification are fully layered onto crypto trading businesses, the original profit models relying on high-frequency trading fees and high-leverage products will be forced to adjust. Stricter customer due diligence and source of funds verification mean that the previously relaxed onboarding and geographical boundary-ignoring expansion will be unsustainable; asset segregation and custody regulations will compress the gray area for platforms to arbitrarily use customer assets, yielding more profits to compliance costs and capital buffers.
● Potential Entry Logic for Banks and Brokers: On the other hand, as rules become clearer, licensed institutions such as banks and brokers may become more actively involved in custody, brokerage, and market-making. For them, the more legally recognizable crypto assets are as "identifiable financial products," the more they can be embedded into existing risk control and capital frameworks. Clear regulatory boundaries allow these institutions to provide "compliant crypto exposure" to clients without breaching their own compliance red lines, seizing business space previously monopolized by unlicensed platforms.
● Clash of Wild Growth and Slow Finance: As "light licenses and heavy traffic" crypto platforms are dragged into the same regulatory track as "slow and heavy" traditional finance, the market table will undergo a reshuffle. The former needs to learn how to "build muscle" in regulatory reporting, capital, and internal control governance, while the latter must adapt to the volatility and technical complexity of on-chain assets. Under unified rules, the competition will no longer be about who dares to offer more high-leverage and high-risk products, but about who can maintain efficiency, innovation, and user experience under compliance.
Industry Game Period: Dual Pull of Lobbying and Retail Situations
● Lobbying and Negotiation During the Consultation Period: During this final consultation period, crypto companies, industry associations, and large law firms are engaged in intense negotiations around key terms. Issues such as "how to define business conduct," "whether DeFi counts as regulated business," and "to what granularity reporting obligations apply" will see a large number of technical opinions submitted. The FCA must find a balance between listening to market voices and maintaining regulatory authority, ensuring that rules are not completely diluted by lobbying while not being so rigid that compliance costs become unbearable.
● Risks of Overly Strict Rules and Liquidity Spillover: There are widespread concerns within the industry that if the final rules are too stringent, project teams may migrate to other jurisdictions, and liquidity may shift to markets with looser regulations. The UK hopes to create a "safe harbor" through strong regulation but must also avoid becoming "an unloved walled garden." How to prevent high-risk behaviors such as money laundering and fraud while retaining high-quality developers and institutional funds will be a reality that the FCA must face after this round of consultations.
● Tension Between Retail Protection and Product Availability: Under the narrative of "stronger consumer protection," retail investors may face higher thresholds and fewer available products. More comprehensive risk assessments and suitability tests mean that some high-leverage and complex derivatives will be kept out of reach for retail investors; stricter marketing restrictions will reduce opportunities for "light onboarding." The tension between protection and choice will gradually emerge after the new regulations are implemented and will be reflected in user migration and the rise and fall of gray channels.
● Uncertainty of Consultation Feedback and Timetable: The feedback results from this consultation period will directly affect the feasibility and pace of the previously marked "plan to open applications for crypto service provider licenses in September 2026." The FCA may still adjust proposal content, extend the transition period, or even fine-tune the implementation path based on feedback. For market participants, the real uncertainty lies not only in the rules themselves but also in when the rules will be finalized and how they will be executed in phases, which will determine their flexibility in adjusting business and governance structures.
From Regulatory Storm to New Order Time Window
The FCA's final consultation on 10 crypto regulatory proposals is, on one hand, a systematic correction of the disorderly expansion and frequent risk events of the past few years, and on the other hand, a bold gamble by the UK to compete for discourse power in the crypto financial center in the post-MiCA era. By building a framework in key areas such as business conduct, credit purchases, and regulatory reporting, London aims to attract projects and institutions willing to operate in long-term compliance with "predictable high standards." The coming months will be a critical transition period for trading platforms, DeFi protocols, token issuers, and traditional financial institutions to simultaneously adjust their business models and governance structures: those who can complete internal compliance restructuring first will have a better chance to seize opportunities in the new order. Once the rules are implemented and enter the licensing phase, compliant platforms with transparent assets, strict internal controls, and clear legal entities are expected to gain valuation and liquidity premiums, while models relying on regulatory vacuums and gray areas will be continuously squeezed. For participants concerned about the direction of London's crypto ecosystem, the key signals to watch for are: the final version of the formal rule text, details of the transition arrangements, and the rhythm and types of the first licenses issued, as these signals will determine whether London will become a high-standard global crypto financial center or be surpassed by more flexible jurisdictions.
Join our community to discuss and become stronger together!
Official Telegram community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh
OKX Benefits Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance Benefits Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=ynr7d1P6Z
免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。
