Kenya’s cryptocurrency market operated in a legal grey area. Exchanges, wallet providers and stablecoin businesses attracted a growing user base, but the regulatory framework struggled to keep pace with the industry’s expansion. That has now changed.
The publication of the Virtual Asset Service Providers Regulations, 2026 through Legal Notice No. 134 marks the first comprehensive rulebook implementing the Virtual Asset Service Providers Act, 2025. The regulations establish how crypto businesses will be licensed, supervised and monitored, while defining the capital, governance and consumer protection standards expected of firms operating in the market.
The framework arrives as Kenya seeks to strengthen oversight of digital finance while pursuing removal from the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) grey list. It also reflects a broader policy decision to treat virtual assets as part of the country’s financial system rather than a lightly regulated technology sector.
That distinction runs throughout the regulations.
Instead of focusing primarily on encouraging startup growth, the rules introduce prudential standards commonly associated with banks and other regulated financial institutions. Stablecoin issuers face the highest capital thresholds, virtual asset service providers must maintain adequate liquidity, segregate customer assets, strengthen governance structures and comply with detailed anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing obligations.
The final regulations also reveal how the government’s position evolved during the consultation process.
Earlier draft regulations proposed significantly higher capital thresholds, including a KES 500 million paid-up capital requirement for stablecoin issuers. Following feedback from industry participants, including the Virtual Assets Association of Kenya (VAAK), the Treasury reduced several requirements before gazetting the final regulations. Stablecoin issuers will now require KES 300 million in paid-up capital, while several other licensing categories also received lower thresholds. At the same time, investment advisers no longer face minimum paid-up capital requirements, creating a lower-cost entry point for advisory businesses while preserving stricter prudential standards for firms that custody customer assets or issue digital currencies.
The revisions show that the final framework did not emerge in isolation. It reflects months of consultation between policymakers, regulators and industry participants over how Kenya should regulate one of Africa’s fastest-growing digital asset markets.
The regulations go beyond establishing a licensing regime.
They define who can participate in Kenya’s regulated crypto market, how much capital different business models must hold, how customer assets should be protected and how regulators expect firms to manage financial and operational risk.
They also provide insight into the government’s broader policy objective. Rather than creating a bespoke framework for technology startups, the regulations place virtual asset businesses within Kenya’s wider financial regulatory architecture. The result is a model that prioritises market integrity, consumer protection and financial stability while leaving policymakers with the challenge of ensuring innovative local firms can still find a practical path into the regulated ecosystem.
The regulations establish different prudential standards depending on the type of virtual asset service being offered, reflecting the varying levels of financial and operational risk across the sector.
Stablecoin issuers face the highest threshold. They must maintain a minimum paid-up capital of KES 300 million, down from the KES 500 million proposed during the public consultation process after industry participants warned that the earlier figure would discourage investment and limit market participation.
Beyond capital, stablecoin issuers must also maintain liquid capital of KES 60 million or 100 percent of current liabilities for at least 30 days, whichever is higher, while holding reserves in low-risk assets to support redemption obligations. Those requirements are designed to ensure that stablecoin issuers can meet customer redemption requests during periods of market stress.
Other categories face lower requirements. Virtual asset wallet providers must maintain KES 150 million in paid-up capital, while tokenization providers require KES 10 million. Initial Coin Offering (ICO) providers must hold KES 20 million in paid-up capital. Investment advisory firms are exempt from paid-up and liquid capital requirements, opening that segment to individuals and smaller firms.
The revised framework reflects a notable policy adjustment. Rather than retaining the original proposals, the Treasury reduced several capital thresholds after consultations with industry stakeholders, including the Virtual Assets Association of Kenya (VAAK), which argued that excessively high requirements could discourage both domestic entrepreneurs and international investment. While regulators accepted some of those concerns, they preserved a prudential framework built around capital adequacy, liquidity management and reserve protection.
Those requirements demonstrate that Kenya has chosen to regulate virtual assets through a financial stability lens rather than treating them solely as technology businesses. Capital buffers, liquidity standards and reserve rules resemble safeguards applied within regulated financial markets, particularly for businesses responsible for holding customer assets or issuing digital tokens intended to maintain a stable value.
The prudential approach also reflects Kenya’s broader anti-money laundering agenda.
Earlier this month, investigators secured court orders freezing approximately KES 115 million allegedly linked to a money laundering network that prosecutors say moved funds through shell companies, international remittance platforms, intermediary bank accounts and Binance wallets using USDT before converting the assets back into Kenyan shillings.
According to court filings, investigators reconstructed fund movements across both conventional banking infrastructure and cryptocurrency platforms while alleging that hundreds of millions of shillings flowed through layered transactions designed to avoid regulatory reporting thresholds.
Whether those allegations are ultimately proven remains for the courts to determine. The case nevertheless illustrates why regulators have placed strong emphasis on customer due diligence, suspicious transaction reporting, licensing obligations and cooperation between agencies such as the Central Bank of Kenya (CBK), Capital Markets Authority (CMA), Financial Reporting Centre (FRC) and the Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI).
The regulations also arrive as Kenya continues implementing reforms required under its Financial Action Task Force (FATF) action plan following the country’s placement on the FATF grey list in 2024. Strengthening oversight of virtual asset service providers forms part of that wider effort to improve anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing controls across the financial sector.
The new regulations also invite comparisons with the United States, although the policy objectives differ substantially.
When Kenya first published its virtual asset legislation, the debate coincided with the United States moving in the opposite direction on parts of decentralized finance. That comparison suggested two governments taking sharply different approaches to crypto regulation.
The context has since become clearer.
The United States is regulating one of the world’s largest and most mature capital markets, where policymakers continue debating how decentralized finance should fit within existing securities and tax frameworks.
Kenya faces a different set of priorities. Policymakers are formalizing a previously unregulated virtual asset market while strengthening anti-money laundering controls, working toward removal from the FATF grey list and protecting one of Africa’s largest digital payments ecosystems.
Viewed through that lens, the regulations are less about mirroring overseas approaches and more about integrating virtual assets into Kenya’s existing financial regulatory architecture. The resulting framework is considerably stricter than many participants had anticipated, but it reflects domestic policy priorities rather than a simple preference for heavier regulation.
While the regulations establish high prudential standards, they also preserve a pathway for innovation through the Capital Markets Authority’s regulatory sandbox.
That distinction matters.
Much of the public debate has focused on whether startups can realistically satisfy capital requirements running into hundreds of millions of shillings. Yet long before the regulations were finalized, CMA officials were already presenting the sandbox as an environment where virtual asset businesses could test products under regulatory supervision before entering the fully licensed market.
The question has therefore evolved.
The debate is no longer simply whether the capital thresholds are high. It is whether the sandbox provides a practical route for promising businesses to mature into fully licensed virtual asset service providers.
If that pathway works as intended, Kenya could encourage innovation while maintaining high standards for businesses handling customer assets. If it proves difficult to navigate, smaller domestic firms may struggle to compete with larger financial institutions and well-capitalized international operators.
Conversations across the industry over the past year suggest that regulation itself has not been the primary source of concern.
At the Kenya Blockchain and Crypto Conference earlier this year, participants from exchanges, stablecoin companies, legal firms and industry associations broadly accepted that regulation was necessary. Their discussions centered on implementation.
Questions raised during those discussions remain relevant today.
Will banks be willing to provide accounts to licensed virtual asset businesses?
Will insurers offer affordable cyber-risk cover?
Can licensing decisions be made efficiently enough to keep pace with technological change?
How will cross-border operators satisfy overlapping regulatory obligations?
Can supervisory agencies build the technical expertise needed to oversee blockchain-based financial services effectively?
Those questions now move from policy discussions into practical implementation.
The same balance appears in broader industry commentary. Financial institutions have welcomed stronger oversight as a way to improve market confidence while cautioning that compliance costs should not become so burdensome that they discourage investment or limit competition. That perspective aligns closely with the final framework, which combines tighter supervision with revisions to several of the capital requirements proposed during consultation.
Taken together, the regulations leave little doubt about the government’s direction.
Kenya has chosen to regulate virtual assets as part of the country’s financial system rather than as an extension of the startup ecosystem.
The capital requirements, liquidity standards, reserve obligations, governance rules and supervisory framework all point toward a prudential model built around financial stability and consumer protection. The reduction in several capital thresholds after public consultation also shows that policymakers were prepared to adjust the framework without abandoning its core objectives.
That does not end the debate.
The success of the regulations will depend less on the rules themselves than on how they are implemented. Licensing timelines, regulatory coordination, supervisory capacity and the effectiveness of the CMA sandbox will shape whether innovative local businesses can graduate into the regulated market alongside established domestic and international firms.
Legal Notice No. 134 provides Kenya with one of the continent’s most comprehensive regulatory frameworks for virtual assets. The next phase will determine whether that framework delivers both stronger market integrity and a competitive environment capable of supporting the country’s long-term digital asset ambitions.
Download the free Kaspersky SMB Cybersecurity Guide here to learn how businesses can move beyond traditional antivirus and build a more resilient approach to cybersecurity.
Go to TECHTRENDSKE.co.ke for more tech and business news from the African continent and across the world.
Follow us on WhatsApp, Telegram, Twitter, and Facebook, or subscribe to our weekly newsletter to ensure you don’t miss out on any future updates. Send tips to editorial@techtrendsmedia.co.ke
