The post FCA sets out tougher framework for crypto firms under CP26/4 appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. The UK’s Financial Conduct Authority has published ConsultationThe post FCA sets out tougher framework for crypto firms under CP26/4 appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. The UK’s Financial Conduct Authority has published Consultation

FCA sets out tougher framework for crypto firms under CP26/4

3 min read

The UK’s Financial Conduct Authority has published Consultation Paper CP26/4, which outlines how its regulatory handbook will apply to firms carrying out newly regulated cryptoasset activities. The proposals outline standards of conduct, consumer protections, rules on safeguarding, and expectations for international firms looking to access the UK market. 

Under CP26/4, the FCA has proposed that the Consumer Duty be applied to crypto firms in the same way as it is for other authorized firms. As a result, firms that serve retail customers would have to show fair value, transparent disclosures, and effective consumer support. However, the Duty would not apply to trading between participants on a UK authorized qualifying cryptoasset trading platform.

The FCA’s draft guidance outlines who qualifies as a product manufacturer in crypto markets. Issuers of qualifying cryptoassets or stablecoins, crypto lending and borrowing platforms, and UK trading platforms would be included in that category.

Complaints, ombudsman oversight, and limits on compensation

CP26/4 confirms that crypto firms would be subject to the standard complaint-handling rules of the FCA. Formal procedures and strict response timelines would be in place, bringing crypto firms into line with established financial services practices.

The proposals would also include crypto activities under the Financial Ombudsman Service. The ombudsman would be able to issue binding awards of up to GBP350,000, providing the consumer with redress that many crypto firms have not yet offered. At the same time, the regulator does not intend to extend the Financial Services Compensation Scheme to crypto activities. Customers would not be compensated for investment losses if a crypto firm fails.

Safeguarding, reporting, and a higher bar for global firms

The consultation also alters the way client cryptoassets must be protected. Firms that deal, operate trading platforms, issue stablecoins, or provide custody could be subject to the FCA’s client asset rules. Client money would be segregated and protected under a statutory trust, similar to traditional finance requirements.

Notably, the FCA has proposed to apply its new regime of safeguarding to both qualifying cryptoassets and security tokens. Training and competence standards would also apply to retail clients for staff, although no mandatory qualifications are envisaged.

For governance, CP26/4 includes thresholds for increased supervision under the Senior Manager and Certification Regime. Large stablecoin issuers and custodians holding assets above certain levels would have increased compliance requirements.

International firms are subject to clearer location expectations. The FCA proposes that most firms serving UK clients operate through a UK legal entity. Limited flexibility may be required for trading platforms that need access to global liquidity, but the overall approach is tighter than for non-crypto firms. The consultation also points out that the Prudential Regulation Authority can take similar expectations of systemic stablecoin issuers.

In addition, the FCA has also opened a consultation on CP26/4 until 12 March 2026. Final rules are anticipated later in 2026, with an authorization gateway in September 2026 and the regime coming into force in October 2027.

If you’re reading this, you’re already ahead. Stay there with our newsletter.

Source: https://www.cryptopolitan.com/fca-sets-out-framework-for-crypto-firms/

Disclaimer: The articles reposted on this site are sourced from public platforms and are provided for informational purposes only. They do not necessarily reflect the views of MEXC. All rights remain with the original authors. If you believe any content infringes on third-party rights, please contact service@support.mexc.com for removal. MEXC makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the content and is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information provided. The content does not constitute financial, legal, or other professional advice, nor should it be considered a recommendation or endorsement by MEXC.

You May Also Like

Cashing In On University Patents Means Giving Up On Our Innovation Future

Cashing In On University Patents Means Giving Up On Our Innovation Future

The post Cashing In On University Patents Means Giving Up On Our Innovation Future appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. “It’s a raid on American innovation that would deliver pennies to the Treasury while kneecapping the very engine of our economic and medical progress,” writes Pipes. Getty Images Washington is addicted to taxing success. Now, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick is floating a plan to skim half the patent earnings from inventions developed at universities with federal funding. It’s being sold as a way to shore up programs like Social Security. In reality, it’s a raid on American innovation that would deliver pennies to the Treasury while kneecapping the very engine of our economic and medical progress. Yes, taxpayer dollars support early-stage research. But the real payoff comes later—in the jobs created, cures discovered, and industries launched when universities and private industry turn those discoveries into real products. By comparison, the sums at stake in patent licensing are trivial. Universities collectively earn only about $3.6 billion annually in patent income—less than the federal government spends on Social Security in a single day. Even confiscating half would barely register against a $6 trillion federal budget. And yet the damage from such a policy would be anything but trivial. The true return on taxpayer investment isn’t in licensing checks sent to Washington, but in the downstream economic activity that federally supported research unleashes. Thanks to the bipartisan Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, universities and private industry have powerful incentives to translate early-stage discoveries into real-world products. Before Bayh-Dole, the government hoarded patents from federally funded research, and fewer than 5% were ever licensed. Once universities could own and license their own inventions, innovation exploded. The result has been one of the best returns on investment in government history. Since 1996, university research has added nearly $2 trillion to U.S. industrial output, supported 6.5 million jobs, and launched more than 19,000 startups. Those companies pay…
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/09/18 03:26
XRP Ledger Unlocks Permissioned Domains With 91% Validator Backing

XRP Ledger Unlocks Permissioned Domains With 91% Validator Backing

XRP Ledger activated XLS-80 after 91% validator approval, enabling permissioned domains for credential-gated use on the public XRPL. The XRP Ledger has activated
Share
LiveBitcoinNews2026/02/06 13:00
TrendX Taps Trusta AI to Develop Safer and Smarter Web3 Network

TrendX Taps Trusta AI to Develop Safer and Smarter Web3 Network

The purpose of collaboration is to advance the Web3 landscape by combining the decentralized infrastructure of TrendX with AI-led capabilities of Trusta AI.
Share
Blockchainreporter2025/09/18 01:07