2026 Florida Blockchain and Cryptocurrency Developments

Florida has become synonymous with entrepreneurship, representing one of the United States’ economic centres, and is currently ranked by Chamber of Commerce research as the fourth-largest economy in the United States. Technology innovation in Florida is bolstered by the jurisdiction’s pro-growth policies, pro-business tax climate and access to a highly skilled workforce, attracting top talent for financial services and financial technology (fintech). Blockchain is a high-growth specialty technology with multiple applications in financial services, including ways to move and validate goods, payments and documents in real time. This article tracks blockchain and related cryptocurrency legal developments in Florida.

Historical background   

Blockchain technology entered the USA and global consciousness after bitcoin (the first-known cryptocurrency) became relevant as an asset class and was used as a virtual currency around 2015 in financial communities. States did not act immediately, awaiting a foundational regulatory framework from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).   

Florida’s initial recognition of blockchain technology was through appointment of a task force exploring and studying the newest layer of the internet, purposed to develop a master plan for fostering the blockchain industry in Florida and to recommend state policies. Florida’s Blockchain Task Force was created in the state House of Representatives and signed into law by Governor Ron DeSantis in 2019. Its committee report in 2020 led to funding for a permanent office of the Florida Office of Financial Regulation (OFR), the Office of Fintech Policy.

The state has taken a thoughtful and deliberate approach to policy and legislative action associated with blockchain technologies and blockchain-enabled cryptocurrencies generally. Beginning with the new Administration in 2025, there have been significant legislative and regulatory developments at the federal level through the passage of the GENIUS Act, the introduction and continued consideration of market structure legislation, and regulatory pronouncements from the SEC and the CFTC. Florida is currently poised to take strategic policy and legislative action long in the making.

Florida has studied the predicted impacts of blockchain and financial technologies on the state, although has not moved to create a legislative framework as has Delaware for corporate laws or Wyoming for digital asset regulation. Florida’s approach will provide an opportunity for the state to attract more industry participants if it is able to balance the needs of Florida’s businesses while establishing clear boundaries of acceptable conduct.

Digital Securities Regulation

Digital assets, cryptocurrencies and certain related transactions may be deemed “securities” under Florida’s current securities laws.

The Division of Securities of the OFR administers and enforces compliance with the Florida Securities and Investor Protection Act (the “FSIP Act”), which is designed to protect the investing public and promote economic growth. The division regulates the sale of securities in, to or from Florida to determine compliance with state law. The OFR also regulates certain participants in the securities markets, including issuers of securities and the intermediaries involved in securities transactions – ie, securities dealers and investment advisers.

Issuances of securities are subject to an interconnected dual federal and state regulatory framework. Given the duality of a securities regulatory framework, adaptation of Florida’s securities laws to accommodate digital assets and cryptocurrencies has been limited while awaiting rulemaking at the federal level by the SEC and CFTC. Federal guidelines for the taxonomies of digital assets emerged in 2026. In March 2026, the SEC (in conjunction with the CFTC) identified four categories of crypto-assets that will not be considered securities, including digital commodities, digital collectibles, digital tools and payment stablecoins. In contrast, digital securities – financial instruments that fall within the statutory definition of “security” and are represented or recorded using distributed ledger or similar technology – remain subject to the federal securities laws. All other categories of digital assets will not be considered securities by the SEC unless offered and sold as part of an “investment contract” or unless such taxonomy is superseded by federal legislation. 

While Florida securities laws have not been amended to date, the OFR has stated that a digital asset or certain transactions involving digital assets that meet the definition of “security” under Florida law (digital asset securities) may be subject to the FSIP Act. Such digital asset securities may be required to satisfy the securities registration requirements under Section 517.07, F.S. Additionally, the OFR stated that the offer and sale of digital asset securities are subject to the antifraud provisions of Section 517.301, F.S. Although Chapter 517, F.S. of the FSIP Act has not been amended to add digital-asset-specific definitions, SB 532, known as the Invest Local Act and effective 1 October 2024, modernised the private-placement and accredited-investor exemptions and tightened the OFR’s enforcement tools, without importing a federal crypto taxonomy.

Florida’s Digital-Asset Definitional Framework

Florida’s operative state-level definitions for digital assets presently live in three statutes that approach the question with quite different purposes.

Florida’s UCC Article 12

The first is Chapter 669, F.S. – Florida’s enactment of UCC Article 12 – which was signed into law as Chapter 2025-92 and effective 1 July 2025. This statute defines a “controllable electronic record” (CER) as a record stored in an electronic medium that can be subjected to “control” under Section 669.105, F.S. CERs include cryptocurrencies, non-fungible tokens (NFTs) and digital assets carrying embedded payment rights. A “qualifying purchaser” is one who acquires control of a CER for value, in good faith, and without notice of competing claims; under Section 669.104, F.S., that purchaser takes the CER free of others’ property claims. Companion amendments to Article 9 add the related categories of “controllable account” and “controllable payment intangible” (Chapter 679, F.S.).

Stablecoin legislation (awaiting governor signature)

For payments and money transmission, the 2026 payment-stablecoin legislation (CS/CS/HB 175 and CS for SB 314), which passed both chambers of the Florida Legislature in March 2026 and is discussed in Section IV, inserts a uniform “digital asset” definition into Section 560.103, F.S.: any digital representation of value recorded on a cryptographically secured digital ledger, excluding national currencies, bank deposits (even those recorded on distributed ledgers), and securities as defined in Section 517.021, F.S. and the federal Securities Act, Exchange Act and Investment Company Act. The same bills define “distributed ledger” and “blockchain”, tracking the formulations that the federal GENIUS Act and the CLARITY Act draft use, and bringing Florida’s working vocabulary in line with the federal regulatory baseline.

The Fiduciary Access to Digital Asset Act

Chapter 740, F.S. – the Florida Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act – uses a deliberately broader definition for estate-planning purposes. Under this act, a “digital asset” is “an electronic record in which an individual has a right or interest”, not including the underlying asset unless that asset is itself an electronic record (Section 740.002(11), F.S.). The broad definition reaches everything from email and cloud-stored files to cryptocurrency wallets and tokenised claims. Chapter 740 also defines “custodian” (a person that carries, maintains, processes, receives or stores a digital asset), “user”, “fiduciary” (covering personal representatives, guardians, agents under a power of attorney, and trustees) and the “online tool” (a custodian-provided service through which a user can direct disclosure or non-disclosure separately from the terms-of-service agreement).

Florida’s Payment Stablecoin Bill

Florida is positioned to be among the first states with a comprehensive regulatory framework for payment stablecoin issuers. CS/HB 175 (companion CS/SB 314) establishes a regulatory framework for state-qualified payment stablecoin issuers that is substantially similar to the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for US Stablecoins Act (the “GENIUS” Act), Pub L No 119-27, 12 USC Sections 5901 et seq. The bill and its companion passed both chambers of the Florida Legislature in March 2026 and as of this writing awaits gubernatorial action. As enacted, this bill would create a state-qualified path to issue payment stablecoin in Florida and would position the OFR to obtain the substantial-similarity certification that the GENIUS Act requires for state regulators to retain authority over state-qualified issuers below the federal threshold. Most substantive licensing and prudential provisions are scheduled to take effect on 1 October 2026, with definitions, OFR certification authority, and conforming amendments to the Florida Control of Money Laundering in Money Services Businesses Act effective upon the bill becoming law.

Two licensing pathways

The bill establishes two routes to qualify as a state-qualified payment stablecoin issuer. Non-bank applicants would obtain a money services business licence under new Part V of Chapter 560, F.S. (Sections 560.501 et seq), which expands the definition of “money services business” in Section 560.103, F.S., to include state-qualified payment stablecoin issuers. Trust companies, which are exempt from Florida’s money services business laws because they are regulated under the financial institution codes, would instead obtain a certificate of approval under the new Section 658.997, F.S. The substantive prudential and operational requirements are the same across both pathways. Insured depository institutions are excluded from the state-qualified category by federal definition, which means that Florida state banks and credit unions that are FDIC-insured would not be eligible to serve as issuers under the Florida framework.

Exemptions and carveouts

Federally qualified payment stablecoin issuers would be exempt from Florida licensure, as would out-of-state state-qualified issuers operating into Florida as a host state, subject to a 30-day written notice to the OFR upon establishing a branch, soliciting customers or otherwise engaging in business activities in the state. Direct peer-to-peer transfers between individuals acting on their own behalf for lawful purposes, intra-entity cross-border transfers between accounts of the same individual under the same parent company, and transactions using software or hardware self-custody wallets would be excluded from regulation. Payment stablecoin meeting the statutory definition would expressly not be a security under the Florida Securities and Investor Protection Act.

Application and decision timeline

Applicants would have to satisfy existing money services business licensing requirements, together with a stablecoin-specific supplement covering minimum prudential capability, fitness of officers and directors (including a felony disclosure for insider trading, embezzlement, cybercrime, money laundering, financing terrorism, and financial fraud), redemption policy, and competence of the management team. The OFR would determine completeness within 30 days and render a decision on a substantially complete application within 120 days. An application would be deemed approved if the OFR fails to act within the 120-day window. Denied applicants would have a right to a hearing under the Florida Administrative Procedure Act and could file successive applications.

Permitted activities and prohibitions

A licence or certificate of approval would authorise only issuance, redemption, reserve management (including purchasing, selling, holding and providing custodial services for reserve assets) and activities directly supporting those functions. Issuers:

• would not be permitted to condition access to stablecoin services on the purchase of unrelated products or on agreements not to use competitors’ products;
• would not be permitted to use names or marketing implying US government affiliation or endorsement;
• would not be permitted to pay interest or yield solely for holding or using a payment stablecoin where federally prohibited; and
• would not be permitted to pledge, rehypothecate or reuse reserve assets except in narrow categories permitted by the GENIUS Act for margin obligations on permitted reserve investments, custodial obligations and limited liquidity management through US Treasury-backed repurchase agreements.

Reserve, transparency and audit requirements

Issuers would be required to maintain identifiable reserves of at least 100% of outstanding payment stablecoins, drawn from the GENIUS-permitted asset list (US coin and currency, demand deposits and insured shares within federal limits, Treasuries with maturities of 93 days or less, overnight repurchase and reverse repurchase agreements backed by short-term Treasuries, registered government money market funds invested only in permitted reserves, and other approved liquid federal government assets, including tokenised forms where compliant). Issuers would publish a monthly reserve report on their website disclosing total outstanding stablecoins, reserve composition, average maturity and custody location. A registered public accounting firm would conduct a monthly examination of the reserve report. The CEO and CFO would submit a monthly certification to the OFR attesting to its accuracy. False certifications would constitute a second-degree misdemeanour. Redemption policies and fees would be publicly disclosed, and fee changes would require seven days’ prior notice to consumers.

AML, sanctions and annual certifications

The bill amends the Florida Control of Money Laundering in Money Services Businesses Act and the parallel Florida Control of Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing in Financial Institutions Act to incorporate payment stablecoins. Issuers would be required to comply with the GENIUS Act’s AML and economic sanctions provisions, the Bank Secrecy Act, and customer identification and due diligence obligations. Each issuer would submit an annual certification to the OFR confirming that it has implemented an AML and economic sanctions compliance programme. The OFR would make those certifications available to the US Secretary of the Treasury upon request and could revoke a licence or certificate of approval for failure to certify, with referral authority to the US Attorney General or the Florida Attorney General for substantive violations.

Federal threshold transition

Issuers with consolidated outstanding issuance below USD10 billion could operate solely under state supervision. An issuer reaching the USD10 billion threshold would, within 360 days, transition to the federal regulatory framework jointly administered by the OFR and the applicable federal regulator, or cease new issuance until total issuance falls below the threshold. Federal waivers would be available, and the OFR could enter into joint supervision agreements with the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. Issuers exceeding USD50 billion would prepare annual financial statements audited by a registered public accounting firm and publish them on the issuer’s website.

Penalties for unlicensed activity

The bill grafts the new regulatory regime onto Chapter 560’s existing penalty architecture. Wilful unlicensed activity involving payment stablecoins of USD300 or less in a 12-month period would be a first-degree misdemeanour. The offence would escalate to a third-degree felony above USD300 and below USD20,000, a second-degree felony above USD20,000 and below USD100,000, and a first-degree felony above USD100,000. Fines could reach the greater of USD250,000 or twice the value of the stablecoins, with the multiplier increasing to five times and the cap to USD500,000 for repeat violations, and a civil penalty of up to the greater of value or USD25,000.

State certification and rulemaking

The OFR would submit an initial substantial-similarity certification to the federal Stablecoin Certification Review Committee (chaired by the Secretary of the Treasury, with the chair of the Federal Reserve Board and the chair of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation), and annual follow-up certifications thereafter. The Financial Services Commission would have rulemaking authority covering capital, liquidity, risk management, conduct, supervision, examination, reserves, customer-asset protection, reporting and compliance. Rulemaking activity will bear watching closely once the bill becomes law, particularly because the federal implementing regulations under the GENIUS Act remained outstanding as of early 2026, and Florida rule development will need to track those federal regulations once issued.

Related: Stablecoin Pilot Program for state payments

Separately from the issuer framework, the Florida Legislature has advanced legislation creating a Stablecoin Pilot Program within the Department of Financial Services to test the acceptance of designated payment stablecoins for certain government payments, with conversion to US dollars and reporting on transaction volume, savings, security, compliance and fraud. The pilot is intended to position Florida as a leader in payments innovation while maintaining consumer protection and fiscal oversight, and would complement the issuer framework by creating a state-side use case for compliant stablecoin issuance.

Virtual Currency in Florida

Virtual currency

Florida’s Money Services Businesses Act (Chapter 560, F.S.) broadly defines “virtual currency” as “a medium of exchange in electronic or digital format that is not currency”. As relevant here, Chapter 560 requires a licence or an exemption from licensure for a person who, for compensation, acts as a “money transmitter” by receiving currency, monetary value, a payment instrument or virtual currency for the purpose of acting as an intermediary to transmit currency, monetary value, a payment instrument or virtual currency from one person to another location or person by any means. Importantly, the definition of “money transmitter” includes only an intermediary that has the ability to unilaterally execute or indefinitely prevent a transaction. These clarifications became law in Florida in 2023, following OFR declaratory statements and to align with Florida appellate court case State v Espinoza.

The Virtual Currency Kiosk Act 

The Florida Virtual Currency Kiosk Act (CS/HB 505) as currently drafted would require virtual currency kiosk businesses (except licensed money transmitters) to register with the OFR. The Florida Virtual Currency Kiosk Act would be integrated into Florida’s Money Services Business Act, and would update disciplinary actions and unlicensed activities sections of Chapter 560 to apply to registered entities, and proposes consumer-related requirements. The draft act would require virtual currency kiosks to:

• ask each customer the amount of any other virtual currency transactions that the customer conducted on the same calendar day;
• provide a notice to customers that fraud often begins with contact from strangers lying about their identity and that, if the customer was directed to the kiosk by someone the customer does not personally know, the customer should stop the transaction and contact a financial adviser or law enforcement; and
• provide a refund within 72 hours after the virtual currency transaction if the consumer believes they were a suspect in a fraudulent, non-US virtual currency transaction.

The Florida Virtual Currency Kiosk Act is pending the governor’s signature at the time of this writing.

If approved by the governor or allowed to become law without the governor’s signature, these provisions are expected to take effect on 1 January 2027, except where otherwise provided.

Secured Lending Developments

Widely publicised Model Act UCC amendments in 2022 helped modernise commercial law by introducing Article 12, providing mechanisms for creditors to secure debtors’ digital assets as collateral. By allowing creditors to layer perfection methods of traditional financing statement filing with perfection by control, Article 12 strengthens secured creditors’ protection in digital asset collateral and is intended to reduce transaction costs while providing protections for market participants. The Article 12 additions, signed into Florida law on 23 May 2025, are titled the Uniform Commercial Code – Controllable Electronic Records.

For practitioners, navigating Article 12 comes down to four points. The chapter creates a new asset class, the controllable electronic record, that finally houses cryptocurrencies in self-custody, NFTs and tokenised payment rights without forcing them through the awkward “general intangibles” category in Article 9, wherein secured parties were subject to outstanding pre-existing claims. Now, a secured party may perfect a security interest either by filing a financing statement under Article 9 (Section 679.3101, F.S.) or by obtaining control of the CER under Section 669.105, F.S., which serves as the digital equivalent of physical possession of such CER, and means that the holder has the practical ability to enjoy the CER’s benefits, the exclusive ability to prevent others from doing so, and the exclusive ability to transfer.

Perfection by control is superior to perfection by filing of a UCC-1 financing statement: once the statutory adjustment date passes (one year after the 1 July 2025 effective date, with Sections 669.701–669.706, F.S., grandfathering pre-existing priorities), a later-arriving secured party that takes control over the CER has non-temporal perfection priority over an earlier filer who only filed. Furthermore, a “qualifying purchaser” – a person who acquires control for value, in good faith and without notice – takes the CER free of competing property claims, putting CERs on roughly the same footing as negotiable instruments under long-standing bona fide purchaser principles. Importantly, Section 669.104(8) makes it clear that a filed financing statement does not constitute notice of a claim of a property right in a CER.

For lenders accepting digital-asset collateral in Florida, the practical instruction is to obtain control through a custodial-acknowledgment agreement with a regulated exchange, a multi-signature wallet, or direct possession of the private key, and to file a financing statement as a backup.

A final piece of the picture pre-dates the 2025–2026 legislative wave but has gained renewed importance: the Florida Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act, codified at Chapter 740, F.S., and modelled on the Revised Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act. The chapter authorises personal representatives, guardians, agents under a power of attorney, and trustees to access, control or copy a user’s digital assets, subject to a three-tier hierarchy: the user’s directions through the custodian’s online tool come first, the user’s estate-planning documents come second, and the custodian’s terms-of-service agreement governs only as a default.

Chapter 740 matters for blockchain practice on two fronts. Smart contracts and the assets they administer – tokenised claims, on-chain agreements and custodial wallet holdings – fit within the chapter’s broad definition of “digital asset”, and the Act has been the principal vehicle that Florida practitioners cite when drafting cryptocurrency provisions with respect to traditional estate plans. When an estate plan directs a trustee to administer cryptocurrency or to interact with an on-chain agreement on behalf of a beneficiary, Chapter 740 is what supplies the lawful authority (recognising such trustee or fiduciary as an “authorised user”) to do so without exposure under the Florida Computer Crimes Act (Chapter 815, F.S.) or the federal Stored Communications and Computer Fraud and Abuse Acts.