Skip to content 
The Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) has long been a key financial hub in the Middle East, hosting a wide range of activities across banking, asset management, insurance, and advisory services. In recent years, the rise of digital assets, mainly those reliant on distributed ledger technology, has pushed regulators to re-examine how securities laws might apply to these new instruments. The Dubai Financial Services Authority (DFSA), as the DIFC’s independent regulator, has introduced a digital assets regime that initially focuses on security tokens. This first phase offers a framework for handling blockchain-based securities, paving the way for subsequent additions covering utility tokens, exchange tokens, and stablecoins.
In this article, we explore the rationale behind the DIFC digital assets regime, the definitions and distinctions the DFSA makes among tokens, and the practical implications for market participants. We also look at how trading venues, wallets, and token issuers must align with DIFC rules to ensure transparency and investor protection. By the end, you should understand how the DIFC’s approach can bolster trust in this evolving sector, while offering room for fintech innovation.
A brief background on the DIFC digital assets regime
In 2021, the DFSA released a consultation paper focused on regulating security tokens within the DIFC. This document shaped part one of the new regime by clarifying how digital or tokenised forms of equity, debt, or other securities exist under existing laws. The regulator then revised its legislative framework to incorporate these guidelines, officially opening the door for security tokens to be issued, traded, and managed in the centre.
The DFSA’s decision to tackle security tokens first was deliberate. Tokens conferring the same rights and obligations as shares, debentures, or futures demand a level of scrutiny similar to conventional investments. The regulator wanted to ensure that any distribution or trading of these digital assets aligns with established investor safeguards, such as the requirement for prospectuses, accurate disclosures, and suitable licensing. Meanwhile, part two of the regime, still pending at the time of writing, aims to address non-securities, such as payment tokens, stablecoins, and certain forms of utility tokens.
Defining tokens in DIFC terms
The DFSA uses the term “token” to describe a digital representation of value, rights, or obligations recorded and transferred electronically via distributed ledger technology (DLT) or similar. Typically, these tokens derive perceived value from cryptography and rely on a network of nodes or miners/validators to confirm ownership changes. Each token holder interacts through addresses secured by public-private key pairs, forming an integral aspect of blockchain-based finance.
Under the new regime, the DFSA is especially attentive to whether a token’s features align with those of a “security.” If so, the authority subjects that token to conventional securities rules, no matter the technology used. For instance, a token guaranteeing holders a share of future profits or conferring equity-like voting power in a project may well be considered an “investment.”
Security tokens and Howey test parallels
One method for classifying a security token is reminiscent of the well-known Howey Test, which examines whether there is an investment of money in a common enterprise with an expectation of profit reliant on a promoter’s or third party’s efforts. If those criteria are met, the DFSA deems it an investment subject to standard oversight. Security tokens usually confer:
- Equity-like rights: Access to dividends, voting, or liquidation proceeds, paralleling shares.
- Debt-like claims: Fixed or floating interest on a principal sum, similar to bonds or debentures.
- Derivative-like structures: The potential for returns based on underlying assets, such as futures or options.
By treating such digital instruments as “specified investments,” the DFSA ensures that prospective issuers or distributors must secure the relevant licences, produce mandatory disclosures, and follow marketing rules designed to protect investors, whether retail or professional.
Our working hours: Monday to Friday, 9 AM – 6 PM GMT+4
Mechanics of trading and settlement
The DFSA relies on a robust existing framework for licensing and supervising market operators, from authorised market institutions (exchanges) to alternative trading systems. Because security tokens are effectively recognized as a new type of security, the same or similar rules apply. Whether the operator is a centralised exchange, a multilateral trading facility, or an organised trading facility, it must incorporate the following:
Fair access
The platform must guarantee that participants are treated without discrimination and that rulebooks are publicly available.
Non-anonymous trading
Privacy tokens or purely peer-to-peer, unverified transactions are not allowed. The DFSA demands strong KYC and AML protocols, ensuring that unscrupulous actors cannot exploit the system.
IT resilience
The authority wants a clear picture of how the underlying DLT technology works, especially how changes like hard forks or updates are handled. The platform must designate how it verifies ownership, updates ledgers, and manages conflicts.
Annual tech audits
Operators typically submit to yearly IT audits performed by independent experts, reviewing cybersecurity posture, code integrity, and compliance with governance procedures.
Because many token-based trades rely on near-instant settlement, the DFSA’s approach covers how these transactions reflect real ownership changes. Where an operator or platform holds client tokens in a single account (under the platform’s private key), the DFSA demands clarity on how trades are matched, validated, and posted to the ledger.
Admissibility and the concept of direct access
Under prior arrangements, only certain types of professional clients or intermediaries could directly participate in DFSA-regulated exchanges. The new digital assets regime modifies this stance, allowing operators to offer direct access to a broader user base, subject to enhanced protocols. This shift acknowledges the more decentralised or peer-to-peer character of digital securities but also imposes responsibilities on the operator to address KYC, AML, and investor classification.
The DFSA sees direct access as a logical extension of the fundamental blockchain premise, where many participants prefer not to rely on a chain of intermediaries. But the DFSA also sets clear boundaries: purely anonymous or privacy-oriented activity is off-limits.
"Platforms offering direct access must continuously monitor clients to ensure they remain within acceptable risk parameters, avoiding underqualified investors or money laundering concerns. "
Listing and issuance of security tokens
Security tokens can be listed for secondary trading on DFSA-regulated exchanges or alternative trading systems in the DIFC, so long as they meet the listing criteria. Additionally, these facilities can handle primary offerings of tokens, akin to how an exchange might host an IPO. The DFSA requires that standard listing prerequisites, from background checks to financial disclosures, be satisfied. For tokens that may be trading on an exchange abroad, the DFSA will weigh if that foreign venue meets suitable standards, potentially enabling cross-listing.
Regarding issuance, the authority reaffirms that conventional securities disclosure rules apply to any public offer of a security token. If the issuer or offering surpasses 100,000 US dollars in minimum subscription, it may qualify as an exempt offer, though any fractional interest sold below that threshold may lose the exemption. The logic is to prevent unscrupulous sellers from marketing high-risk tokens to small or retail investors without adequate protections.
Digital wallets, custody, and the user’s choice
Another area regulated in the DIFC digital assets regime concerns digital wallets, which store the private keys needed to access or transfer security tokens. Clients can pick from hot wallets (connected to the internet) or cold wallets (hardware-based), though the DFSA insists on a licence for any entity providing custody of client tokens. This licence falls under the “Providing Custody” activity, meaning the operator must demonstrate it can keep digital assets secure, ensure real-time reconciliation, and adhere to client asset segregation rules.
Moreover, a user can self-custody tokens via personal wallets. The DFSA’s approach is that the user’s direct ownership is at their own risk, without the platform’s guarantee. If a platform or alternative trading system, on the other hand, holds a user’s keys for convenience, it must show how it prevents theft or misuse. This is crucial because if the platform lumps all tokens under a single private key it controls, a hack or internal fraud might affect all participants simultaneously.
Get the most relevant information about business life in Dubai
Fund tokens and further expansions
The DFSA rules also enable tokenised fund interests. If a token represents a share in a collective investment scheme, it is regulated as a unit in a fund. Additional disclosures mirror those of traditional funds, including how redemptions occur, how net asset values are calculated, and any underlying crypto or real-world assets. Public or private distribution channels can be chosen, matching conventional fund laws while harnessing the speed and transparency of DLT-based issuance.
This flexibility extends to cross-border distribution too, though foreign or domestic marketing rules may come into play. In short, the DFSA treats tokenised fund units as it would treat standard fund units, requiring managers to meet the usual standards for fund licensing in the DIFC.
"The DIFC digital assets regime specifically addresses how the technology-based aspects, such as on-chain valuations or the possibility of immediate settlement, are integrated with existing safeguards."
Part two: A glimpse at what is next
At the time of drafting part one, the DFSA made it clear that exchange tokens, utility tokens, stablecoins, and other forms of crypto assets are not yet regulated in the DIFC. These categories might join the official framework in part two of the digital assets regime. Observers expect the DFSA to define payment-like tokens that do not represent an ownership stake or financial yield, plus stablecoins pegged to external references, under separate guidelines.
For some, this staged approach might pose a temporary gap. If a token does not meet the threshold for a security, it remains outside regulated territory, meaning the DFSA neither endorses nor supervises it. Yet, if the token’s character shifts, say from a “utility” focus to something with equity features, the DFSA can intervene. The net effect is a flexible environment that encourages genuine innovation but curbs mislabeling. Once the second part is unveiled, developers of stablecoins, payment tokens, or utility tokens that cross over into investment territory can expect more clarity.
Fees and additional cost considerations
For advanced market operators handling security tokens, the DFSA has set out specific fee schedules. Filing an application to license an alternative trading system that trades security tokens is about 150,000 US dollars, with a 100,000 annual licence fee. If direct access is offered, another 10,000 per year is levied. A retail endorsement costs 20,000, enabling the operator to deal with non-professional clients. Meanwhile, listing fees for each security token can be 2,500.
The regulatory side is matched by standard DIFC incorporation fees, typically 8,000 for name reservation and 12,000 for forming a private company limited by shares, with extra sums for data protection registration (1,250 for year one and 500 after). Operators also must rent physical offices in the DIFC, with costs ranging from 35,000 to tens of thousands more, depending on location and size. Because operators often need staff on-site, they must plan for the cost of employment visas, deposit fees, and workspace expansions.
-
Issuers face the same disclosure requirements as traditional securities (e.g. prospectus obligations), with exempt thresholds applying above USD 100,000
-
Token-based fund units must follow fund regulations, offering either public or private placement, and disclosing any holdings of crypto assets above 10%
-
The regime offers a phased approach, allowing genuine innovation in tokenised securities while upholding core investor protections and AML safeguards
Managing compliance and ongoing obligations
No matter if a firm is an alternative trading system operator or a token issuer, the DFSA imposes continuing obligations that keep the environment stable:
- Yearly IT audits: Carried out by third-party experts, verifying that the platform or token infrastructure remains secure and adheres to the original specifications.
- AML and KYC: With cryptographic transactions potentially spanning the globe, the DFSA is particularly wary of money laundering. The operator must run identity checks, monitor suspicious trades, and file relevant reports.
- Disclosure updates: When new tokens are introduced, or if an existing token modifies rights, the operator or issuer must inform the DFSA. This ensures no hidden shifts compromise investor rights.
- Client classifications: For direct-access systems, each user’s status (retail, professional, or institutional) must be regularly confirmed, with investor protections tailored accordingly.
Because technology evolves, especially around distributed ledgers, the DFSA expects operators to keep well-documented processes for dealing with forks, code upgrades, or changes to the consensus mechanism. In each scenario, the operator must define how user funds or tokens remain protected.
Final thoughts
The initial coverage of security tokens by the DIFC digital assets regime has already encouraged interest from issuers, fund managers, and platform operators. A wide array of future expansions, from stablecoins to utility tokens, might eventually bring the entire crypto-asset spectrum into regulatory scope. The advantage for participants is an environment that fosters trust among high-net-worth individuals, local family offices, and institutional investors, all of whom appreciate the reputation and clarity associated with the DIFC.
At the same time, the region’s appetite for advanced finance means that the DIFC’s principle-based approach to oversight could attract a variety of proposals, both conventional financial institutions looking to digitise instruments and new-age blockchain enterprises seeking a regulated home. Over the next couple of years, as the second part of the regime is released, we can anticipate more synergy between mainstream finance and the emergent digital sector. This synergy could further anchor Dubai’s standing as a global fintech hub.
