The Australian government has revealed plans to modernize its financial system by introducing a new framework for regulating cryptocurrency firms in 2023. A consultation paper will be issued early next year to determine which digital assets need regulation and to establish “appropriate custody and licensing” rules.
As part of larger measures to modernize the nation’s financial system, Australia will propose a new framework for regulating cryptocurrency businesses next year.
Jim Chalmers, the treasurer, and Stephen Jones, the assistant treasurer, claimed in an official statement that “regulatory architecture” had not kept up with market changes, in “the advent of new digital products and services.”
The action is the new government’s next step after Anthony Albanese, the Prime Minister, took office in May.
“In many areas, the previous government sat on its hands. In other areas, it made announcements but didn’t deliver,” the Treasury said. “In its first six months, the Albanese Government has demonstrated its mature and methodical approach to delivering reform.”
The Treasury had previously declared that its framework would be more well-researched than any other law in existence. It bases its strategy on “token mapping,” a type of market analysis that enables policymakers to determine how various assets and services should be governed.
On Wednesday, the government also unveiled plans for modernizing the nation’s payment systems, enhancing the infrastructure of its financial markets, and regulating services.
This year, Australia intensify its regulation of cryptocurrencies on several fronts, including creating a special crypto unit within the federal police. In order to have stronger control over the industry, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) also increased the number of its cryptocurrency team in September.
The move is part of wider plans by the government to update the country’s payment systems and strengthen its financial market infrastructure. The treasury said needed regulatory measures should have been acted upon and instituted earlier by previous administration.
