Crypto licensing & SRO affiliation

VASP is an international description of a virtual-asset service provider, rather than a single Swiss license category. A Swiss project must be mapped to the applicable AML and financial-market rules. SRO affiliation may address one part of the model; deposit-taking, portfolio management or trading infrastructure can require a different or additional permission.

The analysis examines who can influence the service, control assets, change the protocol or perform intermediary functions. An open-source or decentralized label is not decisive. We review governance and technical powers alongside the contracts, including any lending or yield features, before drawing a conclusion.

Zug offers an established blockchain business environment, but federal financial-market rules also apply there. Location may affect staffing, providers, premises and costs. We assess those practical choices separately from the permissions required for the actual activity and the markets the business intends to serve.

Include application and membership charges, legal preparation, people, audits, technology and provider costs, together with any required capital. Ongoing monitoring and reporting need funding after launch. We use the relevant authority or SRO’s current charges and your operating plan rather than a universal package price.

No. The route follows the activities and customer rights. Exchange, custody, payments, securities dealing and operating a trading venue can raise different requirements. We assess the complete model before identifying SRO affiliation, a FINMA license or another relevant workstream.

The SRO route can suit an eligible business whose financial-intermediary activity falls under AML supervision without triggering a separate institutional license. Its suitability depends on the actual flows and controls. Membership does not itself authorize regulated deposit-taking, securities or infrastructure activities.

Holding customer assets, creating repayment claims, dealing in securities or running regulated market infrastructure can introduce licensing questions. Staking and asset reuse can also change the analysis. We map those features before deciding which authorization category applies.

Swiss proposals contemplate a revised framework for certain crypto and payment businesses. The important distinction is between a proposal and rules that have actually entered into force. We assess the current route and flag adopted changes or transition requirements relevant to the intended launch.

Timing depends on the route, technical and organizational readiness, suitable people and the reviewing body’s questions. A settled asset-flow model and consistent documentation help avoid rework. We plan preparation separately from SRO or FINMA review and do not promise an approval date.

The required establishment depends on the authorization route and proposed Swiss activity. A Swiss entity alone is not the full answer: management, controls and access to operational information also matter. We align incorporation with the actual licensing and supervisory requirements.

It does not create a MiCA passport. EU-facing services, offers and marketing require a separate analysis, potentially involving an authorized EU entity. The Swiss and EU plans should use the same factual description so that responsibilities and customer relationships remain consistent.

The business must maintain its applicable AML controls, governance, financial resources, records and reporting arrangements. Changes to products, custody or providers can require review and notification. We can help turn the application commitments into a practical compliance calendar.

Not necessarily. Issuance must be analyzed through the token’s rights, sale terms and use of funds. Securities, deposit-taking, collective-investment or offering requirements may apply independently of AML affiliation. The issuer and the platform serving it can also have different obligations.

Switzerland has established legal frameworks for financial services and DLT activities. Whether it fits your project depends on customers, capital, operating substance, banking relationships and market access. We compare the practical requirements against the business plan rather than assume one jurisdiction is always preferable.

A foreign authorization should not be assumed to cover Swiss activity. We review where the service is performed and marketed, which entity contracts with customers and whether there is a Swiss establishment. The foreign status may inform the analysis but does not replace it.

A phased launch can be assessed if the initial service is legally and operationally distinct. The permissions, customer terms and marketing must match what is actually available. Additional custody, trading or payment features should be reviewed before they are switched on.

We can assess the route, prepare agreed legal and organizational documents, coordinate the application and address follow-up questions. Technical controls, audit work and operational staffing remain identified workstreams. The proposal sets out the scope, dependencies and costs before the project begins.