In a significant policy statement, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has articulated a regulatory philosophy that treats cryptocurrency and blockchain technology as "finance with new plumbing" rather than a distinct asset class requiring entirely new legislation. Rhys Bollen, ASIC's head of fintech, presented this view at the Melbourne Money & Finance Conference, arguing for regulation based on "economic substance rather than technological form."
Bollen's paper outlines a functional approach where tokenized securities would fall under existing securities laws, stablecoins would trigger payment services legislation, and other crypto elements could be subject to consumer protection laws. This contrasts sharply with jurisdiction-specific frameworks like the U.S.'s proposed CLARITY Act and the European Union's comprehensive Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA).
The core argument is that digital assets represent "new technological instances of longstanding financial activities" centered on capital allocation, payments, and risk management. Bollen emphasized that regulatory systems have historically adapted to technological shifts—from paper to electronic records—without abandoning foundational principles of consumer protection, market integrity, and systemic stability.
Australia is already implementing this philosophy through the Digital Asset Framework bill, which seeks to amend the Corporations Act rather than create a standalone crypto law. The bill aims to integrate digital asset platforms into the established regulatory architecture with tailored amendments. Furthermore, ASIC Information Sheet 225 explicitly rejects the notion of digital assets as a discrete asset class, confirming they may be regulated when functioning as a security, derivative, managed investment scheme interest, or non-cash payment facility.
Bollen noted that a focus on "economic characteristics rather than technological labels" would provide clearer rules and reduce opportunities for regulatory arbitrage. The guidance also focuses on regulating intermediaries—such as platforms offering custody, trading, lending, or yield services—where most consumer harm originates, rather than on the tokens themselves.
Decentralized offerings present a challenge, but Bollen suggested legal analysis should focus on practical control and benefit rather than formal claims of decentralization. "Where identifiable parties exercise influence over protocol design, governance, or economic outcomes, regulatory obligations can and should attach," he stated.
This evolving Australian model represents a gradual integration of digital assets into the traditional financial services framework, positioning itself as a potential alternative to the more prescriptive, crypto-specific regimes emerging in other major jurisdictions.
