Blockchain & Crypto-Assets 2026 Comparisons

The SFSA is the competent authority for the purposes of MiCA and the DLT Regulation in Sweden. It has both a supervisory mandate and the role of processing applications for authorisation and other types of regulatory approval under MiCA and the DLT Regulation.

The SFSA has historically been cautious towards cryptocurrency and has repeatedly warned consumers against investing in cryptocurrencies. MiCA may prompt a shift in this position, as more diligent regulation brings a degree of legitimacy to firms that qualify for authorisation.

The SFSA granted its first regulatory licence under MiCA in October 2025, and, in addition, a large number of foreign crypto-asset service providers are permitted to provide services in Sweden on a cross-border basis under the passporting regime (see 3.4 Passporting).

Categorisation

As Swedish law does not include a national bespoke categorisation system for digital assets, their classification must be analysed case-by-case against general legal concepts. Historically, the focus has been on whether digital assets qualify as financial instruments, which would subject related investment services to securities and investment laws and regulations, most notably Directive 2014/65/EU (MiFID II) and the Prospectus Regulation.

In March 2025, ESMA published guidelines on the conditions and criteria for qualifying crypto-assets as financial instruments. The guidelines stipulate that classification should be carried out in line with the principle of technological neutrality and should take a substance over form approach. When assessing whether tokenised securities qualify as financial instruments under the Swedish Securities Market Act, the characteristics distinguishing crypto-assets from traditional securities and traditional capital markets should also be considered. For example, the fact that a crypto-asset is traded on online trading platforms may indicate that the assets are freely transferable but does not necessarily mean that the assets meet the condition of being negotiable on the capital markets.

MiCA has introduced a new regime for categorisation of digital assets which distinctly regulates three classes of crypto-assets:

• asset-referenced tokens;
• e-money tokens; and
• utility tokens.

An e-money token is a crypto-asset that seeks to maintain a stable value by referencing one official currency. An asset-referenced token aims to maintain a stable value by referencing another value or right (or a combination thereof), including one or more official currencies. Both can be considered “stablecoins” (see also 6.2 Stablecoins).

Utility tokens are defined in MiCA as a type of crypto-asset that is only intended to provide access to a good or a service supplied by its issuer.

Regulated Activities

MiCA regulates various activities involving crypto-assets. There is fundamental divide between how MiCA regulates issuing of crypto-assets on the one hand, and providing services relating to crypto-assets on the other hand.

Under MiCA, issuers are required to publish a white paper before making a public offering of crypto-asset tokens or seeking their admission to trading on a trading platform (see 2.4 Token Issuance).

Separately from the regime applicable to issuers, MiCA governs crypto-asset services including custody, operating trading platforms, exchange services (crypto-to-fiat and crypto-to-crypto), order execution, placement, reception and transmission of orders, advising, portfolio management and transfer services. These broadly correspond to investment services under MiFID II, but relate to crypto-assets rather than financial instruments.

Providing these services requires MiCA authorisation and entails various regulatory obligations, including organisational and disclosure rules, safekeeping of client funds, outsourcing requirements, conduct rules (including an obligation to act honestly, fairly and professionally in clients' best interests), and prudential requirements such as maintaining own funds.

Client Categorisation

MiCA does not establish a formal client categorisation framework of “retail” versus “professional” clients comparable to the tiered system under MiFID II. However, there are elements of investor protection embedded in MiCA whereby the sophistication of each individual client is taken into account. Specifically, in the context of providing advice or portfolio management relating to crypto-assets, MiCA stipulates a requirement for service providers to assess whether the crypto-asset services or crypto-assets are suitable for their clients. In fulfilling this requirement, firms are required to obtain from their clients or prospective clients the necessary information regarding:

• their knowledge of, and experience in, investing, including in crypto-assets;
• their investment objectives, including risk tolerance;
• their financial situation, including their ability to bear losses; and
• their basic understanding of the risks involved in purchasing crypto-assets, so as to enable crypto-asset service providers to recommend to clients or prospective clients whether or not the crypto-assets are suitable for them.

In relation to crypto-asset issuing activities, MiCA draws a more formal distinction based on investor type. In order to benefit from the exemption from authorisation requirements for issuing asset-referenced tokens, one of the criteria is that the offer is addressed solely to qualified investors and the asset-referenced tokens can only be held by such qualified investors. In this context, qualified investors are primarily institutional investors, large undertakings, and national or regional governments, central banks and international or supranational institutions.

Regulation of Legal “Wrappers” – Alternative Investment Funds

By using a legal wrapper, for example an alternative investment fund, as an indirect vehicle to give investors exposure to underlying crypto-assets without directly investing in crypto-assets themselves, the sectoral rules governing crypto-assets will, in principle, be replaced by sectoral rules governing alternative investment funds instead – in so far as it concerns the relationships with ultimate investors.

A key practical consequence is that alternative investment fund managers (AIFMs), already regulated under sectoral legislation, are not subject to authorisation by or notification to the SFSA under MiCA.

However, using a fund wrapper introduces different regulatory and practical consequences affecting both the service providers and investors. For example, in an alternative investment fund structure, depositary requirements impose liability on the depositary for losses of the fund’s assets, which can be complex when the underlying assets are crypto-assets subject to risks of DLT malfunctions or cyberattack-related misappropriation.

Regulated Firms/Funds with Exposure to Digital Assets

Regulatory capital requirements for credit institutions and large investment firms stem primarily from Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms (CRR) and are EU-based rather than Sweden-specific.

The prudential treatment of crypto-assets under the CRR prescribes specific risk weights for various categories of crypto-asset exposures. The EBA, being mandated to develop regulatory technical standards (RTS) specifying how institutions calculate own funds requirements for crypto-asset exposures, published its final draft RTS in August 2025; once adopted, these standards will provide detailed rules on calculating exposure values and aggregating positions in crypto-assets.

MiCA’s Issuing Regime

Under MiCA, token issuers are required to publish a white paper before making a public offering of crypto-asset tokens or seeking their admission to trading on a trading platform. The white paper must contain certain mandatory disclosures and be notified to the SFSA in advance. Exceptions apply where, for example, the offer (other than for asset-referenced tokens or e-money tokens) is directed at fewer than 150 persons per EU member state, the total consideration does not exceed EUR1 million over a 12-month period, or the offer is exclusively addressed to qualified investors who are the only permitted holders.

Issuers of e-money tokens or asset-referenced tokens face significantly more extensive regulation under MiCA compared to issuers of other types of crypto-assets. Subject to some exemptions, e-money token issuers must be authorised credit institutions or electronic money institutions, comply with applicable sectoral legislation, and publish a white paper notified to the SFSA.

Issuers of asset-referenced tokens need to obtain prior authorisation from a member state National Competent Authority (NCA) and publish a white paper approved by the relevant NCA. In order to obtain MiCA authorisation, asset-referenced token issuers are under an obligation to demonstrate compliance with own funds requirements, governance arrangements, disclosure requirements, conflict of interest and complaints handling mechanisms, reserve of assets obligations, custody and investment policies for reserve assets, and orderly wind-down planning.

Limited exemptions from full authorisation exist, notably where the issuer’s outstanding amount of stablecoins remains below EUR5 million or where tokens can only be held by qualified investors. Even where these exemptions apply, the issuer is still required to prepare a crypto-asset white paper setting out the key characteristics and risks of the tokens and to notify the competent authority of the white paper before its publication.

Financial Instruments and Prospectus Obligations

If tokens are considered to be transferable securities, they may be subject to the existing Prospectus Regulation and Swedish law and regulations that implement the European prospectus regime. If transferable securities are offered to the public or are being listed on a regulated market, a prospectus must be prepared unless an exemption is applicable. It has traditionally been customary as part of the initial coin offering (ICO) process to publish a white paper, usually describing the project and related topics in brief. Historically, the content of these white papers has not, in general, met the Swedish prospectus requirements.

Criminal and Civil Fraud and Enforcement

Swedish criminal law takes a broad approach to offences such as fraud, embezzlement and money laundering, and applies equally regardless of whether the offence involves traditional money or virtual currencies. For instance, fraud and embezzlement do not require any actual transfer of money. What matters is whether the perpetrator gained a profit or advantage at the expense of the victim ‒ which can be the case even where the relevant property is a virtual currency. Similarly, money laundering covers any action aimed at concealing the criminal origin of money or other property, including virtual currencies. Since virtual currencies are recognised as property under Swedish law, the criminal provisions apply to them in the same way as to traditional forms of money.

Since 31 May 2021, Sweden has had legislation in place implementing the EU Directive on combating fraud and counterfeiting of non-cash means of payment. Under this framework, the fraudulent use of non-cash means of payment is a criminal offence. The definition of non-cash means of payment is broad and includes instruments that enable transfers of virtual currency. In this context, a virtual currency is understood as a digital representation of value that is not issued or guaranteed by a central bank or public authority, is not necessarily linked to a legally established currency and does not have the legal status of currency or money, but is accepted by natural or legal persons as a means of exchange and can be transferred, stored and traded electronically.

MiCA has introduced a dedicated market abuse regime for virtual currencies, drawing on the principles already familiar from the Market Abuse Regulation applicable to financial instruments. Under MiCA, issuers of virtual currencies that are admitted to trading on an authorised trading platform are required to disclose insider information. In addition, MiCA prohibits insider dealing, market manipulation and the unlawful disclosure of inside information in relation to such virtual currencies.

In 2013, the SFSA intervened against a person providing money remittance services by receiving fiat currency from Swedish customers and using those funds to purchase Bitcoin from an exchange service provider in Iran. The customers could subsequently instruct the Iranian exchange service provider on how to settle the outstanding balance, eg, by exchanging the balance in Bitcoin into local currency. In essence, this enabled the customers to transfer money from Sweden to Iran by way of exchanges into and from Bitcoin. The SFSA ordered the provider to cease operations on the basis that the activities constituted licensable payment services. The decision was appealed but was upheld by the Stockholm Administrative Court in 2014.

In 2021, the SFSA initiated a thematic supervisory review of anti-money laundering compliance by two Swedish cryptocurrency exchanges. One of the investigations was concluded without any formal supervisory intervention, while the other resulted in an administrative fine of SEK2 million.

These supervisory activities occurred prior to MiCA, at a time when activities relating to crypto-assets were not heavily or extensively regulated. With MiCA, a change can be expected in the supervisory enforcement attitude toward regulated firms in the area of non-compliance, not only because the regulatory obligations are vastly more comprehensive and rigorous, but also because the scope and scale of activities have been significantly expanded to advisory services, portfolio management services, brokerage, and other services.

Licensing

Before MiCA, digital asset-related activities were largely outside the scope of Swedish licensing requirements, with only service providers offering services for the exchange of virtual currencies or custodian wallet services being subject to regulatory registration requirements. However, MiCA significantly expanded the scope of licensable activities relating to digital assets, imposing authorisation requirements for issuers of asset-referenced tokens and for crypto-asset service providers (eg, trading, exchanging, transferring or advising in relation to crypto-assets).

As a temporary transitional measure, existing providers of crypto-asset services who became subject to regulatory authorisation requirements under MiCA were afforded a limited time period to continue their operations before obtaining MiCA authorisation. MiCA affords individual EU member states a degree of flexibility in determining the duration of the transitional relief period and Sweden elected to permit service providers who were lawfully operational before 30 December 2024 to continue their operations until 30 September 2025. As this time has now expired, the full scope of authorisation requirements set out in MiCA now applies in Sweden.

Territorial Scope

As a general principle, Swedish financial regulatory licensing requirements only apply to activities that are deemed to be conducted in Sweden, which covers both local operations and foreign operations actively targeting a Swedish audience.

By contrast, the concept of reverse solicitation can potentially enable foreign service providers (regardless of whether they are established inside or outside the EEA) to avoid Swedish licensing requirements, as services (of any kind) are not deemed to be provided in Sweden in cases of reverse solicitation. The principle of reverse solicitation essentially permits a foreign firm to provide regulated services to Swedish clients on an unlicensed basis provided there is a genuine and unsolicited request by the Swedish client for one or more particular services. Whenever a firm intends to rely on reverse solicitation, it is essential to ensure that there has been no prior marketing of the relevant firm’s services that can be considered to have influenced a client’s request, neither in the form of broad public marketing to a Swedish audience or direct marketing to a particular client who subsequently makes a request for services or products. Furthermore, a client serviced on a reverse solicitation basis may not be offered or provided any other category of services or products than those requested, nor be subsequently offered the same service at a later point in time unless another request has been made by the client. ESMA has developed guidelines specifying how to determine whether reverse solicitation applies in the context of crypto-asset services, and the SFSA complies with these guidelines.

The formalities for obtaining a licence in Sweden as a crypto-asset service provider are set out in MiCA and corresponding EU delegated regulations. The licence application is submitted to the SFSA, and comprises various documentations such as:

• a programme of operations setting out the types of crypto-asset services to be provided;
• a description of governance arrangements;
• a description of prudential safeguards;
• information on shareholders with qualifying holdings;
• documentation to support the suitability of members of the applicant’s management body; and
• a business continuity plan, policies for detection and prevention of money laundering and terrorist financing, etc.

Additional documents may be required for each specific service, eg, a custody and administration policy, a description of the procedure for the segregation of client crypto-assets and funds, and an execution policy.

Under MiCA, a crypto-asset service provider is required to have in place prudential capital equal to the higher of two amounts: either a percentage of the fixed overhead costs of the preceding year, or a fixed amount depending on the nature of crypto-asset services provided (ranging from EUR50,000 to EUR150,000).

As an alternative to maintaining own funds, a crypto-asset service provider may obtain professional indemnity insurance covering the territories where the service provider operates, provided that such an insurance policy has adequate coverage and otherwise is compliant with more detailed requirements set out in MiCA.

Part of the process of becoming authorised under MiCA as an asset-referenced token issuer or as a crypto-asset service provider is the approval of significant owners as satisfying the criteria of sufficiently good repute. Significant owners are shareholders or members, whether direct or indirect, who have qualifying holdings. A qualifying holding means any direct or indirect holding in an issuer of asset-referenced tokens or in a crypto-asset service provider which represents at least 10% of the capital or of the voting rights or which makes it possible to exercise a significant influence over the management of the firm.

Before any acquisition of a qualifying holding in an authorised issuer or crypto-asset service provider, the proposed acquirer must undergo an assessment of suitability. Any change of control in relation to the firm is therefore subject to a regulatory procedure involving an assessment by the SFSA. This corresponds to the established procedure for a number of other categories of regulated entities such as banks, investment firms and payment service providers.

As with many other categories of EU financial service providers, crypto-asset service providers may leverage their home-state authorisation to provide services across the EEA under MiCA’s passporting regime.

Passporting under MiCA, although not entirely automatic, is a relatively straightforward procedure. It involves submitting a notification to the SFSA of the intention to offer services in another EEA member state, specifying information such as the types of services offered in the host jurisdiction, how the services will be provided, whether a local branch will be established or whether it is a case of an entirely remote service offering. The SFSA then communicates the notification to the host country’s supervisory authority and to ESMA.

Passporting is limited to the range of services for which the crypto-asset service provider is appropriately licensed, and does not extend to any other types of crypto-asset services nor to any services of a completely different type. There is no corresponding equivalence or recognition regime available for third-country crypto-asset service providers.

Marketing

Marketing of digital assets is governed by general marketing rules under Swedish law, including:

• the Swedish Marketing Act (SFS 2008:486);
• the Swedish Act on Price Information (SFS 2004:347); and
• the Swedish Act on Contractual Terms in Consumer Relations (SFS 1994:1512).

In 2023, following a large number of complaints being filed with it, the Swedish Consumer Agency (SCA) examined how digital assets were being marketed in Sweden. Complaints have commonly concerned different kinds of fraudulent offers related to digital assets. However, marketing of fraudulent offers falls outside the authority of the SCA and is handled by other authorities such as the SFSA. The SCA’s examination is therefore only focused on the marketing of legal digital asset offerings by Swedish service providers.

In its examination, the SCA identified several areas where much of the marketing of legal digital assets failed to comply with Swedish marketing rules, most notably:

• unfounded positive claims regarding market position (such as purporting to be Sweden’s leading crypto broker), swiftness and customer satisfaction, etc;
• advertising implying that the service provider is under the supervision of the SFSA and consequently approved by the SFSA (when the service provider was only registered with the SFSA);
• insufficient display of risk information, while much of the marketing examined contained risk information, the information should, according to the SCA, be more prominently displayed and should also be included in every piece of advertising;
• concealed price information – information regarding fees should be shown in direct connection with the marketing (a customer should not need to scroll down or click on a link to access the information);
• terms in consumer relations prescribing dispute settlement in foreign courts or in arbitration, which are generally considered unfair in relation to consumers;
• terms that require notice of termination to be sent in writing, which are considered unfair in relation to consumers;
• terms regarding changes in general terms, where the service provider is allowed to change the terms without proper notice and without giving the consumer the chance to terminate the agreement; and
• unfair terms regarding limitation of liability, both in relation to the services provided and to the information on the service provider’s websites.

White labelling refers to a situation in which a regulated institution provides products or services which are distributed and offered to customers under the brand of a partner who may or may not be a regulated entity. White-label solutions can, in principle, be used by firms partnering to provide crypto-asset services, but unlike certain other financial regulatory frameworks like MiFID II and PSD2, MiCA does not provide a regulatory framework for formal agency relationships. Unlike investment firms and payment institutions (for example), a MiCA-authorised crypto-asset service provider cannot formally appoint a third-party agent to provide services on its behalf. If a third party is effectively providing crypto-asset services (including cases involving a partnership with an authorised crypto-asset service provider) this will trigger MiCA authorisation requirements.

Therefore, white-label solutions in the field of crypto-asset services need to be arranged in such a manner that any and all licensable processes and functions are performed by the appropriately authorised entity, while a third party may only have a more limited role and may not itself provide regulated services to customers.

On the token issuing side, MiCA permits third-party distribution of asset-referenced tokens provided the issuer gives written approval and the distributor complies with obligations under MiCA regarding market communications, fair and professional conduct, clear communication, equal treatment of token-holders, and the prohibition on interest-bearing tokens.

While MiCA’s application extends to services and activities performed in a partially decentralised manner, cases where crypto-asset services are provided in a fully decentralised manner, without any intermediary, should not fall within the scope of regulation.

There is very limited activity with respect to decentralised autonomous organisations in Sweden. There are no specific regulations in relation to decentralised autonomous organisations but Swedish general company law may be applicable, either by choice or because the underlying circumstances deem the decentralised autonomous organisations to constitute an unregistered partnership (enkelt bolag), for example; an unregistered partnership exists where two or more parties have agreed to operate a business together.

Due to the limited extent of decentralised finance activities falling outside the scope of MiCA, there is limited guidance from case-law and regulators on the concepts of accountability and liability in this specific context. Sweden has not introduced specific legislation governing these aspects for DeFi structures, and therefore generally applicable liability and tort principles apply.

Use of Digital Assets in Payments

Swedish law does not prohibit the use of crypto-assets as a means of payment, but does not recognise them as legal tender. Only banknotes and coins are recognised as legal tender, which households and companies must be able to use for payments.

MiCA classifies e-money tokens as electronic money, bringing them within the definition of “funds” under PSD2 and the Swedish Payment Services Act. This means that payment transactions using e-money tokens become subject to dual sets of regulatory frameworks, which is contrary to the EU legislator’s intention. In response, the EBA issued a no-action letter in June 2025 advising supervisory authorities not to enforce dual authorisation for all types of e-money token transactions, for a limited time period, in the interest of business continuity pending resolution through the forthcoming PSD3 framework.

Payment in Kind Using Bitcoin

In a judicial decision from November 2022, the District Administrative Court in Härnösand considered whether a Swedish limited liability company could be incorporated by payment for company shares in kind using Bitcoin. The Court found that payment in kind using Bitcoin could be considered to satisfy the requirements under Swedish law. However, the decision was appealed, and in December 2023 the Administrative Court of Appeal in Sundsvall repealed the decision, owing (inter alia) to uncertainty regarding rights in rem in relation to blockchain transactions and to the volatile nature of Bitcoin.

Other Government Initiatives

The Swedish Central Bank (Riksbanken) is currently assessing the possibility of establishing and backing an e-currency: the e-krona. The e-krona is envisaged as a retail CBDC, ie, a central bank digital currency that is available to the general public.

For a number of years (2020–2024), Riksbanken was running a pilot project with a third-party provider to develop a blockchain-based e-krona platform. The pilot comprised four phases of analysis, testing and evaluation, with the final results published in March 2024.

No legislative initiative has been proposed to make the e-krona a reality. Riksbanken has concluded that a digital euro would generally have a positive influence on the usefulness of an e-krona. One reason for this is that an e-krona would contribute to safeguarding the current role of the Swedish currency. Another reason is that a digital euro may reduce the cost and complexities of launching an e-krona. Thirdly, Riksbanken has expressed that a co-existing digital euro and e-krona could improve cross-border payments through interoperability.

Tokenisation involves expressing ownership rights and other rights attached to an asset as programmable code, a so-called smart contract, on a distributed ledger or blockchain.

One method of tokenisation involves tokens being issued directly on the blockchain, and having all records related to tokens and their issuance, redemption, disposal and transfer be recorded solely on the blockchain. Another method is a digital twin model, where tokens do not alone represent the legal existence of the right, and are instead a digital proof of ownership in addition to the underlying original manifestation of ownership (eg, in a traditional register).

As Sweden has not enacted any specific legislation governing tokenisation, the general rule is that tokenisation may give assets a new technical form but typically not change the characteristics of the underlying assets. For example, tokenised bank deposits are legally and economically identical to money in bank accounts, and therefore represent a claim on the bank.

For some types of assets, this means that tokenisation has limited use. For example, for property that is subject to specific legislation requiring ownership transfers to be manifested in particular manners (eg, for sale of real property where there is a written form requirement), a digital transfer of a tokenised reflection of the property will not actually transfer title to the underlying asset.

However, for other types of assets, the absence of express recognition or accommodating legislation is less of a practical hindrance, and for those cases tokenisation can have real benefits. One example is tokenised fund units, which can enable faster and more efficient subscription and redemption processes, open up for fractional ownership, and provide near real-time transparency through tamper-proof traceable transactions and portfolio transparency on the blockchain.

Due to the stagnation in Sweden’s legislative adjustments to the DLT Regulation, and the absence of follow-up on the legislative proposal published in 2023, it is uncertain what lies ahead for tokenisation in the Swedish market.