Taiwan's Financial Supervisory Commission has opened consultation on eight draft regulations that would build the operating rulebook beneath the new Virtual Asset Service Act. The package moves beyond a single licensing test: it reaches establishment, senior personnel, general management, internal control and audit, outsourcing, customer-asset accounts and suspicious activity, financial reporting and the role of industry associations.[1][2]
The notice gives a 40-day consultation window running from 6 November to 16 December 2026. Because these are drafts, exchanges, brokers and other virtual-asset providers should not describe the individual provisions as final obligations yet. The significance is that the supervisor has now exposed the compliance architecture it intends to use for the sector.[1][2]
Eight proposed rulebooks
| Draft area | What it governs |
|---|---|
| Establishment | Formation and entry requirementsSource 1Source 2 |
| Responsible persons/personnel | Management and business-person standardsSource 1Source 2 |
| Management | Operating governanceSource 1Source 2 |
| Internal control and audit | Control framework and assuranceSource 1Source 2 |
| Outsourcing | Use and oversight of external providersSource 1Source 2 |
| Accounts and abnormal transactions | Virtual-asset accounts and suspected illegal/clearly abnormal activitySource 1Source 2 |
| Financial reports | Preparation and filingSource 1Source 2 |
| Trade associations | Industry-association governanceSource 1Source 2 |
The practical burden is a stack, not a licence form
For international crypto brokers, the proposed package is useful because it shows the likely breadth of localisation. A firm entering Taiwan would need to map not only corporate establishment and capital, but also who can manage the business, how outsourced technology is governed, what internal audit evidence is retained, how account activity is monitored and what financial reports are filed locally.[1][2]
The account and abnormal-transaction proposal is especially relevant to platforms that already run global blockchain analytics and AML monitoring. A group control can support the local framework, but it does not automatically prove compliance with Taiwan-specific definitions, escalation duties or filing rules. The same applies to outsourcing: using a global cloud or surveillance provider does not remove the regulated firm's responsibility for its local obligations.[1][2]
What firms should do during consultation
| Workstream | Reason now |
|---|---|
| Gap map | Compare global policies with all eight draft areasSource 1Source 2 |
| Entity design | Identify which Taiwanese entity would hold permissions and contractsSource 1Source 2 |
| Outsourcing register | Map critical vendors and retained oversightSource 1Source 2 |
| Monitoring taxonomy | Compare local abnormal-transaction definitions with current rulesSource 1Source 2 |
| Governance | Check proposed eligibility for responsible personsSource 1Source 2 |
| Change log | Keep draft requirements separate from final rules after consultationSource 1Source 2 |
The news is therefore not that Taiwan has imposed eight final regulations. It is that the FSC has converted the broad statute into a detailed proposed operating framework and set a short comment period. The next material stage is the final text: changes between consultation and adoption could alter entry requirements, controls and implementation timing for VASPs planning to serve Taiwanese clients.[1][2]
Sources & further reading
- Draft regulations forum — Virtual Asset Service Providers Taiwan Financial Supervisory Commission · 6 Nov 2026 · Accessed 8 Nov 2026
- Notice of Proposed Enactment of Eight Regulations Governing Virtual Asset Service Providers RegAlert, reproducing FSC notice · 6 Nov 2026 · Accessed 8 Nov 2026