- Singapore’s regulatory authority, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), has announced restrictive measures against cryptocurrency companies and given them until the end of the year to comply.
- MAS has declared that companies providing services to the cryptocurrency sector must place customer funds under a legal trust by the end of the year. The regulatory body has also imposed restrictions on lending and staking services offered by crypto companies to individual customers.
- However, there will be no restrictions on services offered to institutional investors. MAS emphasizes that these measures are important for the security of customer funds and will also provide protection against the insolvency of cryptocurrency companies.
The MAS decision to implement these measures was based on data obtained from consulting public opinion on the matter shortly before the collapse of FTX in October 2022, according to a Bloomberg article.
Singapore Regulator Imposes Restrictions on Crypto Companies
Potential Changes in Restrictions
MAS has stated that its stance on token lending and staking restrictions for retail customers may change in the future.
“Some participants suggested allowing DPT service providers to offer these activities to retail customers with their consent and risk disclosures, while others advocated for the prohibition of these high-risk and speculative activities. MAS will monitor market developments and consumer risk awareness and take steps to ensure that our measures remain balanced and appropriate.”
MAS has also sought feedback from the public on legislative changes focusing on the implementation of current requirements.
Former MAS regulator Angela Ang commented on the restrictions, stating that they were not surprising:
“This latest tightening of retail access to crypto should come as no surprise to anyone following the Singapore market. It will reduce the risk of customers losing their assets or having them misused and facilitate the recovery of customers’ assets in the event of a DPT service provider’s insolvency.”
