Australia’s Senate Economics Legislation Committee has moved ahead with a bill that would require crypto exchanges and tokenized platforms to operate under the country’s existing financial services framework. Under the proposal, platforms that hold customer assets would fall under a clearer licensing and supervisory regime and would need to comply with custody, settlement, governance, and disclosure standards set by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, or ASIC.
The bill targets platforms that hold client assets
The proposed Corporations Amendment (Digital Assets Framework) Bill 2025 is being pushed by regulators who want “digital asset platforms” and “tokenised custody platforms” brought into a defined oversight structure. The legislation was first introduced in November last year. It would require covered firms to operate under the Corporations Act and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act. Regulators are aiming to reduce the risk of failures at platforms that control customer assets, a concern sharpened by past collapses such as FTX.
Licensing, custody, and disclosure obligations form the core
To comply, affected platforms would have to meet ASIC custody and settlement standards, give retail clients tailored disclosures, and follow platform-specific conduct and governance rules. The bill also includes an exemption threshold: smaller providers with annual transaction volumes below 10 million Australian dollars, or about $7 million, would not be subject to the framework.
Industry groups warn the definitions may reach too far
Some market participants argue that the bill’s tests for “digital token” and “factual control” are broad enough to pull wallet software providers and infrastructure firms into the regulatory perimeter. The debate comes as companies including Ripple look to expand in Australia and secure the licenses needed to operate in the market.
Ripple Labs said the concept of “control” is the right connection point for setting the boundary of regulation, but it also argued that the framework should be adjusted to reflect modern security models such as multi-party computation wallets. The company warned that, under a strict interpretation of the “factual control” test, a technology provider holding only one key shard in a multi-party setup could be treated as a regulated custodian even if it cannot move client assets on its own.
Committee accepts the concerns but keeps the draft intact
The committee acknowledged those concerns, but backed the Treasury’s approach of refining the regulatory perimeter through future regulations instead of rewriting the bill’s core definitions. For now, Australia’s approach is taking shape as a broad legislative framework first, with narrower implementation details to be set later.