Token classification & FINMA inquiries

An inquiry is useful where the regulatory treatment needs clarification, but it should not be presented as a universal filing requirement for every token. We assess the rights, issuance and distribution first, then identify whether authority input is warranted. A response about classification is not an endorsement of the investment or a substitute for required authorizations.

It examines the token’s rights, economic purpose and technical mechanics to identify the relevant Swiss regulatory treatment. We distinguish our legal assessment from an inquiry to FINMA. An authority response addresses the submitted facts; it is not a general endorsement of the project.

Payment tokens are intended for transferring value. Utility tokens provide access to a service or application. Asset tokens represent economic rights such as debt, equity or investment participation. A token can combine these features, so the analysis considers its full design and use.

Investment rights, standardization and suitability for mass trading can bring a token within securities rules. Rights to income, repayment or ownership deserve particular attention. The review examines the actual rights and offering structure rather than whether the project uses the term security token.

Securities treatment can affect offering documents, financial-services duties, dealing and the platforms on which the token trades. These are separate questions from the issuer’s own status. We identify the obligations for each participant and the proposed distribution markets.

Yes, once the design is sufficiently defined to assess. Classification can influence the entity, customer terms, fundraising materials and permitted activities. Starting before public commitments are made gives the team room to change features that would otherwise create avoidable regulatory work.

Our drafting schedule depends on the completeness and stability of the design. FINMA’s review is a separate stage and may involve further questions. We identify the missing facts and submission work first; a launch date should not assume a guaranteed authority response time.

Yes. A hybrid token can have payment, access and investment characteristics at the same time. Relevant requirements can apply cumulatively. The assessment should also address how rights or functionality change between the fundraising stage and the live product.

No. Access functionality must be considered alongside the token’s actual use and any investment or payment features. A label in the white paper does not determine the legal outcome. We test the proposed rights, sale mechanics and working functionality together.

The payment function is only part of the assessment. A redemption claim, reserve structure, guarantee or participation in an asset pool can introduce banking or collective-investment questions. Each stablecoin design therefore needs its own review rather than automatic treatment as a simple payment token.

FINMA accepts authorization inquiries from natural and legal persons. The submission still needs concrete facts about the planned structure, activity and Swiss connection. We can sequence the inquiry and incorporation work so that unresolved entity choices are made explicit.

Yes, if the legally relevant design is settled enough to describe accurately. We record assumptions about issuance, transfer, redemption and control. Later code or commercial changes must be checked against the assessment, particularly if they alter customer rights.

No. The legal review addresses rights and regulatory consequences; a security audit examines implementation and technical risks. We can help the legal and engineering teams align their questions, but technical assurance requires a suitably qualified specialist.

The scope can include a classification memorandum, analysis of launch obligations, questions for FINMA and review of token-related terms or disclosures. We agree the deliverables before work begins and identify any separate offering, tax, foreign-law or technical work.