US Money Transmitter Licensing
PART SEVEN: CRYPTO, STABLECOINS, AND VIRTUAL CURRENCY Chapter 23

Virtual Currency Licensing: The Evolving Regulatory Map

When I started working on money transmitter licensing in 2009, the word "Bitcoin" didn't register for most compliance professionals. The idea that an unregulated, peer-to-peer digital currency system would eventually force states and the federal government to completely rethink how they define money transmission seemed implausible. Yet here we are, navigating a regulatory landscape where the fundamental question—what is money?—no longer has a simple answer.

The evolution toward virtual currency licensing happened in two waves. The first wave, roughly 2014-2017, saw state regulators scramble to determine whether existing money transmitter statutes covered digital assets. The second wave, 2018 to present, has involved states either clarifying their existing definitions or creating entirely new regulatory frameworks for virtual currency businesses. The result is not a single coherent system but rather a patchwork where your licensing obligations depend heavily on your geography and the specific nature of your virtual currency operations.

FinCEN's definition of virtual currency came first. In their March 2013 guidance and subsequent clarifications, FinCEN stated that a person who exchanges or transmits virtual currency and thereby creates, obtains, or maintains custody, ownership, or control of virtual currency on behalf of another is a money transmitter under federal law. This wasn't legislation. It was FinCEN's interpretation of the Bank Secrecy Act, announced through guidance documents. The federal government didn't have a statutory definition of virtual currency—instead, it imported existing money transmitter rules and said "these apply to digital assets too."

States, however, had something different. Most state money transmitter statutes, drafted in the 1980s and 1990s, defined money transmission in terms of accepting money for transmission and paying it out. Some statutes specifically referenced "fiat currency" or "US dollars." The question every state had to answer was: does our existing statute cover virtual currency, or do we need new legislation?

The most direct answer came from New York. Rather than trying to retrofit an old statute, New York created the BitLicense in 2015—a completely separate licensing framework for virtual currency businesses. The BitLicense was New York's attempt to create a purpose-built regulatory regime specifically for digital assets. It required applicants to demonstrate financial soundness, compliance infrastructure, cybersecurity measures, and various consumer protections. On its face, this seemed like a model approach: custom rules for a novel activity.

In practice, the BitLicense became a symbol of regulatory overreach. The application requirements were onerous. The compliance expectations were extraordinarily detailed. And most problematically, the license gave the New York Department of Financial Services discretion to deny applications based on broad grounds, including whether the applicant's "operating plan is sound." Companies found themselves in expensive, multi-year application processes with no clear end date. The regulatory capital requirements were high. The margin requirements on customer funds exceeded what most businesses found economically viable. By 2018, only a handful of companies held BitLicenses, and the framework had become a cautionary tale rather than a model for other states.

Some states took the opposite approach. They looked at their existing money transmitter statutes and concluded that virtual currency transmission was already covered. If the statute said "money" broadly enough, it included Bitcoin. Illinois took this view early. Texas took this view. Florida took this view. These states didn't need new legislation because they believed the existing framework was capacious enough. This meant that anyone doing virtual currency transmission in these states fell under the existing MTL regime, with all the accompanying net worth requirements, bonding, and compliance obligations.

Other states created middle-ground approaches. California revised its money transmitter statute in 2015 to explicitly reference virtual currency and digital money. Texas, while not creating a separate license, clarified through guidance and enforcement patterns that virtual currency transmission was covered under its existing money transmitter law. Wyoming took a creative path by creating the Special Purpose Depository Institution (SPDI) charter in 2018, allowing crypto-friendly banking without a traditional money transmitter license. Wyoming was essentially saying: we want crypto businesses here, and we'll create regulatory structures that acknowledge your actual business model rather than forcing you into a framework designed for money wiring.

The federal government, meanwhile, created its own separate regulatory framework. The OCC issued guidance in 2020 saying that national banks could provide custody services for digital assets. The Federal Reserve has been cautious, treating crypto banking relationships as requiring enhanced due diligence. This created a bifurcated system where some crypto businesses could work with federal-charter institutions under federal supervision, while others had to navigate state-level money transmitter requirements.

How a crypto business actually determines which licenses it needs depends on several factors. First, what exactly is the business doing? If you're running a custodial service where you hold customers' digital assets, you may need a money transmitter license in many states. If you're running a non-custodial peer-to-peer exchange where users trade directly without you ever taking possession, the licensing question becomes fuzzier and depends entirely on how your state defines money transmission. If you're issuing your own virtual currency or token, you're looking at entirely different regulatory questions involving securities law, commodities law, and possibly banking law.

Second, where is the business located? A company based in New York faces the BitLicense requirement if they're serving New York customers and touching digital assets. A company in Wyoming can structure itself as an SPDI and potentially avoid federal money transmitter obligations. A company in Illinois needs to navigate the state's money transmitter framework as applied to virtual currency.

Third, which states are you serving? This is where the real complexity emerges. Many states that didn't explicitly address virtual currency in legislation have nonetheless determined through enforcement and guidance that existing money transmitter laws apply. If you're serving customers in those states—and in the internet age, you can't easily exclude states—you may need licenses in those states even if you're physically located somewhere else.

The movement toward uniform legislation has gained momentum recently. The Uniform Law Commission has worked on model legislation for virtual currency, though adoption has been slow and uneven. Some states have adopted uniform laws on digital assets, but these often operate alongside existing money transmitter regimes rather than replacing them. This creates the worst-case scenario: you need to comply with both the uniform framework and the traditional money transmitter requirements.

One concrete example helps illustrate the landscape. I worked with a stablecoin issuance platform that wanted to launch in 2022. The team had headquarters in Delaware but wanted to serve customers nationwide. Our analysis determined that they needed:

What didn't they need? They didn't need separate federal licensing because they weren't a bank. They didn't need a Wyoming SPDI charter because they weren't taking deposits. They didn't need a federal money transmitter license because no such thing exists—money transmission is a state-regulated activity.

The licensing process itself reflected the reality that this landscape is still shifting. When we filed for the New York BitLicense, the requirements kept changing as the department issued new guidance. When we applied for the Texas license, the examiner had to go back to his supervisor to clarify how stablecoins fit within the existing statute. When we dealt with California, the regulatory interpretation was clear, but the relationship between the state and federal banking regulators was still being worked out.

The practical result is that crypto businesses today face two simultaneous choices: go state-by-state and obtain licenses in any jurisdiction where you have customers, or restrict your customer base to a specific set of friendly jurisdictions and obtain licenses only there. Most choose the former and plan for multi-state expansion even though it's expensive, because the alternative is artificial market restriction.

The landscape continues to shift. Some states have recently clarified that certain activities—particularly non-custodial DEX platforms or pure peer-to-peer exchange—don't trigger money transmitter licensing. Other states have moved in the opposite direction, taking increasingly broad positions on what constitutes money transmission. The federal government is still developing its approach, with ongoing discussions about whether crypto assets should be regulated like commodities, like money, like securities, or like something entirely new.

The movement toward a clearer framework isn't happening through any coordinated process. It's happening through enforcement actions, cease-and-desist letters, licensing denials, and the practical decisions made by businesses trying to figure out where they can and can't operate. A company that operates without proper licenses in a state where licenses are required faces not just regulatory sanctions but potentially civil liability to customers and claims that they were operating an illegal money transmitting business.

Practitioner's Bottom Line: Virtual currency licensing is determined by state-by-state definitions that vary dramatically, with New York requiring a separate BitLicense, some states incorporating virtual currency into existing money transmitter statutes, and others creating novel frameworks like Wyoming's SPDI charter. The only reliable approach is to map your specific business model against the current requirements in every state where you have customers, recognize that these requirements are actively evolving, and build flexibility into your compliance program to adapt as states clarify their positions. Federal guidance helps but doesn't eliminate the state licensing requirement.

Need Help Navigating Money Transmitter Licensing?

Faisal Khan has spent 15+ years solving the exact problems covered in this book. If you are building a payment company, seeking licensing, or need a trusted advisor — reach out.

SPEAK WITH FAISAL KHAN