The U.K.’s long-promised crypto regulatory regime edged closer to reality this week, as the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) unveiled its consultation that will ultimately define how crypto firms operate in Britain.
Together with legislation from HM Treasury, the proposals form the backbone of a framework scheduled to take effect in October 2027. For policymakers, the objective is to balance growth and innovation with market integrity and consumer protection. For the industry, the challenge is navigating an 18-month transition period in which the destination is clearer than ever — but still some distance away.
“This is it for the U.K.,” Dea Markova, director of policy at crypto infrastructure firm Fireblocks, said in an interview. “This is the definitive regime for regulating the issuance and intermediation of crypto assets.”
The latest consultations need to be viewed as part of a longer, carefully sequenced process, according to Sébastien Ferrière, a financial regulation lawyer at Pinsent Masons.
For more than a year, the U.K. has been working through a regulatory roadmap that expands the FCA’s jurisdiction over crypto. The first step has been legislative: Treasury-defined regulated activities determine what falls inside the perimeter. Only then can the FCA impose authorization requirements and detailed rules.
“Over the last year, things have really started to take shape,” Ferrière said. “We’ve been on a treadmill of consultations, but they are now forming a coherent framework.”
Earlier phases focused on stablecoin issuance and custody, prudential requirements such as capital and wind-down planning, and the application of existing FCA obligations — governance, systems and controls, operational resilience — to crypto firms. This week’s consultations turn squarely to markets: trading platforms, intermediaries, staking, decentralized finance, admissions and disclosures, and crypto-specific market abuse rules.
Taken together, Ferrière said, the FCA is attempting to transpose the architecture of traditional financial regulation onto crypto markets, while tailoring it to reflect the technology’s distinct risks.
One of the most consequential design choices is the U.K.’s decision to extend existing financial services rules to crypto, rather than writing a standalone rulebook from scratch as the European Union (EU) did with its Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) regulation.
That distinction matters, but not in a simplistic way. Ferrière described the FCA’s approach as a hybrid. Cross-cutting obligations — principles of integrity, conflict management and fair treatment of customers — are being applied largely as-is. Market-facing rules, however, are being written specifically for crypto.
“There is a new admissions and disclosures regime and a new market abuse regime,” Ferrière said. “They are not simply lifting the rules for securities and applying them wholesale. They echo the existing framework, but they’re drafted to reflect the parameters of crypto assets and crypto services.”
The regulator, he added, is walking a tightrope. Being more permissive than in traditional markets would invite criticism that crypto is receiving preferential treatment. Being more restrictive could push activity offshore. The stated goal is “same risks, same outcomes,” even if the mechanics differ.
For Markova, the U.K.’s most important asset is timing. By moving after the EU and amid ongoing debate in the U.S., Britain has been able to observe how regulatory decisions play out in practice.
“The U.K. is very proactively trying to learn lessons from other jurisdictions,” she said. “You can see that in the proposals and in the political narrative.”
That narrative matters, Markova argued, because many decisions faced by banks and asset managers integrating crypto services are ultimately risk judgments made in areas where the law is not black and white. A supportive policy backdrop leads to different outcomes than one dominated by fear of enforcement.
She also pointed to several areas where the U.K. has diverged from EU precedent, including explicit treatment of staking, lending and borrowing, and a more pragmatic recognition that crypto liquidity is global rather than tied to national venues.
Despite the progress, significant uncertainties remain — particularly around stablecoins and DeFi.
On stablecoins, Markova said policymakers have acknowledged the need to distinguish between payments and investments, avoiding the trap of regulating merchants as financial intermediaries simply for accepting digital tokens. But deeper questions remain unanswered: how foreign-issued stablecoins will be treated relative to sterling-denominated ones, what due diligence obligations will fall on platforms, and how conservative settlement policy could affect adoption.
DeFi poses an even harder conceptual challenge. The FCA has signaled that sufficiently centralized activity will be regulated like traditional intermediation. But many DeFi services are non-custodial by design.
“Identifying a responsible entity and applying a custodial framework doesn’t always address the actual risk,” Markova said. “That’s why DeFi regulation hasn’t really been solved anywhere.”
David Heffron, also a financial regulation lawyer at Pinsent Masons, framed the big-picture test as proportionality. The FCA insists it wants a competitive, innovative market, but the cumulative burden of conduct rules, operational resilience standards and capital requirements will shape how attractive the U.K. is to global firms.
“It’s too early to make a definitive call,” Heffron said. “But this is a significant market, and I’d be surprised if international operators didn’t want access to U.K. liquidity.”
Ferrière highlighted another issue likely to grow in importance: extraterritorial reach. Determining what constitutes “operating in the U.K.” is already complex in traditional finance. In crypto — inherently global and digital — firms may find themselves inside the regulatory perimeter sooner than expected, forcing decisions on geo-blocking, restructuring or establishing a U.K. presence.
From the FCA’s perspective, success would mean more informed investors, reduced market abuse, higher confidence and sustainable competition. New admissions and disclosures rules are intended to standardize information about crypto assets, while market abuse provisions aim to address manipulation and information asymmetries — both prerequisites for deeper institutional participation.
The cost is compliance, and the regime is explicitly not designed to eliminate risk. Instead, it seeks to ensure participants engage with crypto markets with clearer information and stronger safeguards.
For now, the U.K. has crossed an important threshold: moving from endless “frameworks” to a concrete regulatory end-state. Whether its second-mover strategy delivers a competitive edge — or simply delays clarity — will become clear as firms decide whether to build for the U.K.’s crypto future ahead of 2027.
