Under Switzerland's 2025 consultation draft, SRO membership alone would not be enough for firms that commercially hold clients' crypto-assets, trade them in their own name for clients, or trade short-term for their own account while quoting prices. They would need a crypto-institution licence from the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority (FINMA), filing within one year of entry into force and carrying on until FINMA decides if still SRO-affiliated.
What the draft gives a firm that is already an SRO member
Everything below comes from two federal documents, both in German: the consultation draft and the explanatory report. How the route works today is in our Swiss SRO route guide.
Key takeaways
- This is a consultation draft, not law: SIF says the Federal Council's dispatch to Parliament comes in the second half of 2026 at the earliest.
- The licence follows the activity: custody, own-name trading for clients, and short-term proprietary trading with price quotes. Non-custodial wallets are outside it.
- A firm newly caught would have one year from entry into force to file, and could carry on until FINMA decides if it stays SRO-affiliated.
- Foreign-controlled crypto-institutions would fall under the Banking Act's rules on foreign-controlled banks.
- The draft sets no minimum-capital figure; the Federal Council would set it.
What does the Financial Institutions Act amendment propose?
The Federal Council opened a consultation on amending the Financial Institutions Act on 22 October 2025; it ran until 6 February 2026. The bill would create two licence categories: payment instrument institutions, which would replace today's fintech licence and remove its CHF 100 million cap on client deposits, and crypto-institutions.
The State Secretariat for International Finance (SIF) describes crypto-institutions this way:
"Crypto-institutions provide various services with cryptocurrencies. In terms of content, the new licensing and operating criteria are based on those for securities firms but are less comprehensive, as crypto-institutions do not provide services with financial instruments."
The gap it closes: under current law, the explanatory report says, most crypto services need no licence, and crypto trading is not subject to supervision. What applies instead is anti-money-laundering (AML) supervision through an SRO: professional financial intermediaries must join an SRO recognised by FINMA, and FINMA is explicit: "Such financial intermediaries are supervised by the SROs where they are affiliated, and not by FINMA."
Which activities would need a crypto-institution licence?
Draft Article 51r(1) defines a crypto-institution by what it does commercially: holding clients' crypto-assets in custody; trading crypto-assets in its own name for clients' account; or trading short-term for its own account while quoting prices publicly, continuously or on request. The explanatory report adds that the third limb in principle also covers crypto exchange business, which is usually structured like market-making.
Three activities, today and under the consultation draft
| Activity | Today, per the explanatory report | Under the consultation draft |
|---|---|---|
| Trading crypto-assets in your own name for clients | No licence; AML duties apply | Crypto-institution licence (Art. 51r(1)(b)) |
| Short-term proprietary trading with price quotes, including exchange business | No licence; AML duties apply | Crypto-institution licence (Art. 51r(1)(c)) |
| Holding clients' crypto-assets where you control them | Licence only for pooled custody (Banking Act Art. 1b) | Licence whether assets are pooled or individually allocated (Art. 51r(1)(a)) |
Where control stays exclusively with the client, as in non-custodial wallets, no licence is required. Asset management with crypto-assets needs no crypto-institution licence either, though SIF says crypto-institutions and other crypto service providers will face conflict-of-interest requirements. Lending, including margin accounts, proprietary derivatives trading and short selling fall outside the category and need a securities firm or bank licence. And only commercial activity counts, above thresholds the Federal Council would set. Stablecoins issued abroad are in scope too, according to SIF's fact sheet.
What happens to firms that are already SRO members?
An SRO member that needs no licence today but would need one must, under draft Article 74b, file a licence application within one year of entry into force. Until FINMA decides, it may carry on, provided it is affiliated to an SRO under the Anti-Money Laundering Act and supervised by it.
A firm that already holds a financial-market licence for its activity needs no new licence, but must meet the new requirements within one year of entry into force.
The explanatory report counts about 200 virtual asset service providers affiliated to an SRO in mid-2024, about 115 of them active. For most firms doing AML-covered crypto business through an SRO today, the report says, the reform means a change of supervisor to FINMA, AML supervision included: crypto-institutions would join the Act's list of financial intermediaries, with FINMA overseeing their compliance. What SRO admission involves today is set out in the Swiss SRO application process.
Does the draft change anything for a foreign-owned Swiss company?
One provision is specific to foreign control: the Banking Act's provisions on foreign-controlled banks would apply by analogy (Article 51t). According to the explanatory report, that allows FINMA in particular to require reciprocity from the states concerned, and to require that the firm's name does not indicate or suggest a Swiss character.
For a group controlled from outside Switzerland, the shareholder chain becomes a licensing question, not only a tax one. Separately, every crypto-institution seated in Switzerland, whoever owns it, must take the form of a commercial company (Article 51s). Wider substance requirements are in local substance requirements explained.
How much capital, and what will a licence cost?
The draft does not say. Article 51v leaves the amount of minimum capital to the Federal Council. On cost, the explanatory report is candid: it depends on the quality and complexity of the application and cannot be quantified precisely, and beyond FINMA's direct fees firms may pay for legal advice.
One relief is written in: a custody-only crypto-institution would escape the risk-distribution and liquidity duties modelled on securities firms, because its risks are lower. What SRO membership costs today is broken down in what a Swiss SRO licence actually costs.
When would the new rules apply?
No date has been set, and we will not guess one. SIF's fact sheet puts it this way: "The Federal Council will submit a dispatch to Parliament for approval in the second half of 2026 at the earliest." The act would be subject to an optional referendum, with the Federal Council setting its entry into force.
On 10 September 2026, SIF's DLT and blockchain page still listed the consultation opened on 22 October 2025 as the project's latest step.
Is it still worth joining an SRO now?
For a firm inside Article 51r, SRO membership would be the condition for carrying on until FINMA decides; once licensed, AML supervision passes to FINMA. The useful question is which limb of Article 51r your model falls under. If one applies, prepare the membership file to the standard FINMA would later apply.
Before you file, settle three things:
Where the keys and the orders sit
Who controls private keys, in whose name trades execute, and whether you quote prices decide whether you are inside Article 51r.
Who controls the company
Foreign control brings in the foreign-bank rules; fix the shareholding and the name with that in view.
Two reviewers, not one
The SRO reviews your AML framework now; FINMA would review a licence application later. FINMA has offered pre-applications since 2024, and the explanatory report, discussing fintech-licence applications, records FINMA's view that a relatively high share of the applications it receives are not capable of approval.
Swiss SRO membership applications are our top revenue line, and no one can promise an approval. Refusals are covered in what happens if your application is rejected, and the alternatives to Switzerland in Swiss SRO vs EU MiCA vs El Salvador.
Frequently asked questions
What can an SRO member do without a crypto-institution licence under the draft?
Activities outside Article 51r(1). The explanatory report says non-custodial wallet models, where control stays with the client, need no licence, and neither does asset management with crypto-assets. Custody, own-name trading for clients and short-term proprietary trading with price quotes would need it; margin lending needs a securities firm or bank licence.
Would existing SRO members have to stop operating when the law takes effect?
Not under the consultation draft. A firm that needs no licence today but would need one must file a licence application within one year of entry into force. Until FINMA decides, it may carry on, provided it is affiliated to an SRO under the Anti-Money Laundering Act and supervised by it.
Can a foreign-owned company hold a Swiss crypto-institution licence?
The draft anticipates it, applying the Banking Act's provisions on foreign-controlled banks to crypto-institutions by analogy. According to the explanatory report, that allows FINMA in particular to require reciprocity from the states concerned and a company name that does not suggest a Swiss character. Whether a licence is granted rests with FINMA.
Where we fit
This page describes a consultation draft, not law in force, and is not legal advice. CryptoLicense is the licensing advisory brand of CL GLOBAL SDN BHD (1421939-T), in business since 2020, with 100+ companies served and 10+ jurisdictions covered; see entity proof and the glossary. If your model outgrows the SRO route, our twelve jurisdictions are compared on our jurisdictions page. No application can be guaranteed; every regulator keeps its own discretion.
Part of a series: the full guide is at the Swiss SRO route.