Crypto & Digital Assets in United Arab Emirates

Key dates

2026-10-28

ADGM published the Guidance on Crypto Mining Activities in and from ADGM under section 23 of the Commercial Licensing Regulations 2025.

Suggested considerations

• Firms considering establishment or continued operation in ADGM should perform the RA pre-application self-assessment and document why their activities fall within commercial mining rather than an FSRA-regulated financial service.
• Operators should assess whether they require or should apply for the dedicated commercial licence associated with activity code 7230 and should avoid representing the licence as an authorisation to conduct regulated financial services.
• Compliance teams may wish to prepare an up-to-date corporate structure and ultimate-beneficial-owner information for RA review, together with governance documentation proportionate to the scale and risk of the operation.
• Operators should identify all blockchain addresses used to receive mining rewards and establish controlled procedures for making the required confidential on-chain address disclosures to the RA.
• ADGM-headquartered groups should map global mining activities, reporting lines, outsourced infrastructure, jurisdictional controls and board oversight so that the ADGM entity can demonstrate reasonable supervision of overseas operations.
• Firms should review whether staking, validator, custody, brokerage, token issuance, investment management or other associated activities separately require FSRA permission or create an additional regulatory perimeter.
• Operators may wish to monitor the RA’s forthcoming consultation on the second-phase regulatory framework and preserve records supporting their current perimeter analysis, licensing basis, governance and operational-risk controls.
• Firms should consider the practical implications identified in independent commentary, including operational resilience, cybersecurity, infrastructure security, energy management, transparent service terms and any applicable UAE federal tax, accounting and AML/CFT requirements, without treating those commentary points as additional requirements expressly created by this publication.

What changed

Commercial crypto mining conducted in or from ADGM is associated with dedicated RA commercial activity code 7230 and requires the applicable commercial licensing pathway. The Guidance is technology-neutral and covers Proof-of-Work, Proof-of-Stake and future consensus mechanisms. It establishes a pre-application self-assessment to help applicants distinguish mining from FSRA-regulated financial activities, and highlights expectations concerning corporate structure, ultimate beneficial ownership, and confidential disclosure of on-chain addresses used for reward flows.

Key dates

2026-10-09

FSRA published Consultation Paper No. 6 of 2026 on proposed revisions to the FEES and GEN Rulebooks.

2026-11-06 Deadline

Consultation closes and written comments are due to the FSRA.

2027-01-01

Implementation is proposed by independent market commentary to begin, subject to consultation feedback and final FSRA rulemaking; this is not yet an adopted effective date.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review the consultation paper, Appendix 1 amendments to FEES, Appendix 2 amendments to GEN and Attachment 1 amendments to the GPM, and submit written comments to [email protected] by 2026-11-06.
• Market-infrastructure operators may wish to model the proposed application, annual supervision, Official List and trading-related charges against current budgets and assess whether the proposals affect pending applications or planned launches.
• Virtual-asset MTF operators and applicants may wish to recalculate total regulatory costs using the proposed USD 100,000 base MTF application fee, USD 40,000 base annual supervision fee, USD 25,000 virtual-asset application fee and USD 20,000 virtual-asset annual fee.
• Authorised Persons may wish to inventory permissions covering Virtual Assets, Fiat-Referenced Tokens and Spot Commodities and determine whether a proposed permission addition would trigger a separate variation or activity fee.
• Regulatory reporting owners may wish to test filing calendars, escalation controls and management information against the proposed USD 1,000, USD 2,000 and USD 3,000 late-filing stages, while recognising that the proposed regime is not yet binding.
• Applicants and compliance officers may wish to review change-in-control and variation-of-permission procedures, including whether proposed applications require additional supporting information or revised fee calculations.
• Firms may wish to prepare implementation plans for a possible 2027-01-01 commencement while continuing to apply the existing FEES and GEN requirements until final amendments are published.

What changed

The consultation proposes completing the FSRA's review of market-infrastructure fees by revising charges payable by Recognised Bodies and by operators of Multilateral Trading Facilities and Organised Trading Facilities. For a virtual-asset MTF, independent analysis of the proposed FEES amendments identifies a proposed underlying MTF application fee of USD 100,000 and annual supervision fee of USD 40,000, plus proposed virtual-asset-specific fees of USD 25,000 on application and USD 20,000 annually, producing proposed totals of USD 125,000 and USD 60,000 before any applicable trading levy or...

Key dates

2026-11-30 Deadline

Consultation period for ADGM FSRA Consultation Paper No. 5 of 2026 closes; comments may be submitted to [email protected].

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review the proposed Guidance and submit written comments to [email protected] by 2026-11-30, particularly on operational feasibility, proportionality and the treatment of permissionless protocols.
• Firms should consider inventorying current and planned DeFi activity, including protocol use, liquidity provision, staking, lending, borrowing, decentralised exchange activity, smart-contract interaction and client-facing exposure.
• Firms should consider mapping each DeFi activity to existing ADGM permissions and identifying activities that may require a variation of permission, additional controls or discontinuation.
• Risk and compliance functions may wish to assess whether existing governance arrangements clearly assign senior accountability for DeFi, approve protocols and counterparties, set exposure limits and address conflicts of interest.
• Firms should consider enhancing due diligence for protocol code, governance structures, upgrade and administrative privileges, oracle dependencies, bridge and composability risks, concentration, liquidity, sanctions exposure and the availability of legal recourse.
• AML and financial-crime teams may wish to assess transaction-monitoring, wallet-screening, sanctions-screening, blockchain analytics, travel-rule and suspicious-activity escalation controls for DeFi-related activity, taking account of limited visibility into beneficial ownership and counterparties.
• Operations and technology teams should consider whether incident-management procedures cover smart-contract exploits, oracle failures, governance attacks, de-pegging, bridge compromise, protocol insolvency, loss of access and material service disruption.
• Client-asset teams should review segregation, custody, ownership, valuation, reconciliation and disclosure arrangements where client assets interact with DeFi protocols or are exposed to protocol failure.

What changed

The proposed Guidance sets supervisory expectations for identifying, assessing, monitoring and managing risks arising from engagement with DeFi protocols and venues. It covers governance and accountability, risk assessments, due diligence, exposure and control measures, ongoing monitoring, financial-crime controls, incident escalation, recordkeeping, auditability, competence and client-asset safeguards. The proposal is guidance under consultation and does not itself introduce binding new rules at this stage.