Copyright trinidadexpress
THE Government deserves credit for finally bringing legislation on virtual assets and their administration to Parliament. For years, Trinidad and Tobago has sat on the margins while other jurisdictions moved ahead with clear rules for cryptocurrencies, digital -tokens, and virtual asset service providers. The Virtual Assets and Virtual Assets Service Providers Bill, 2025 puts our country into the conversation. It provides much-needed legal clarity, gives the Trinidad and Tobago Securities and Exchange Commission (TTSEC) firm powers to supervise the sector, and aligns with global standards on anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing. The bill defines the scope of virtual asset activities, covering exchanges, transfers, custody, wallet services, and financial services linked to token issuance. It gives the TTSEC investigative authority, surveillance powers, and enforcement mechanisms to protect consumers and the financial system. It also requires cooperation with the Central Bank, the Financial Intelligence Unit, and international counterparts. These are positives. They align with the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) requirements that every country must implement to avoid blacklisting and reputational damage in international finance. From that perspective, the Government is on solid ground. But the question is not whether regulation is needed. It clearly is. The question is whether the hand of the -Government is too heavy at this stage. The bill bans all virtual asset activities in or from Trinidad and Tobago until December 31, 2027. Operators who are already providing services must notify the TTSEC within one month of the law taking effect and then shut down within three months. Advertising of virtual asset activities is prohibited unless licensed, but no licences will be issued until after 2027. Penalties are severe, including fines of up to $5 million and possible imprisonment. For a sector that is still young and innovative, the bill moves from regulation straight to prohibition. This approach is at odds with global developments. The European Union’s Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA) creates a licensing regime that is already in effect, with transitional arrangements for existing operators. Singapore has issued a framework for stablecoins and licenses exchanges under its Payment Services Act. Hong Kong has rolled out a licensing system for trading platforms and allowed retail participation under strict safeguards. Japan has had regulated exchanges for nearly a decade. Closer to home, The Bahamas updated its Digital Assets and Registered Exchanges Act in 2023, tightening protections but allowing firms to register and operate. Even the Cayman Islands has taken a phased approach to licensing rather than shutting down activity. These countries have chosen to regulate while allowing activity to continue. They recognise the risks of fraud, money laundering, and investor harm, but they also see the potential for innovation, job creation, and financial inclusion. By contrast, Trinidad and Tobago has chosen to freeze its market for two years. That gap is significant. It risks pushing entrepreneurs, developers and investors offshore. It delays the building of local expertise in an area where skills are already scarce. It keeps our citizens on the sidelines while the rest of the world experiments, learns and improves. The Government may argue that the pause is prudent. Digital assets are volatile and often abused for criminal purposes. Regulation is complex, and TTSEC and the Central Bank need time to build capacity. But capacity is not built in a vacuum. It is built by supervising live activity, testing rules in practice, and learning through experience. A total ban postpones the learning curve. It may make regulators more comfortable, but it does little to prepare Trinidad and Tobago for the future financial system that is already unfolding elsewhere. The bill also raises questions about the Central Bank’s own plans for a central bank digital currency (CBDC). Many countries have pursued CBDCs while allowing private digital asset markets to develop under regulation. The Bahamas has the Sand Dollar. Jamaica has JAM-DEX. Nigeria has the eNaira. None of these required shutting down private activity to move forward. In fact, coexistence has often been key to adoption. By drawing such a hard line, our bill may unintentionally complicate future CBDC rollouts by leaving consumers and businesses with no legal exposure to digital assets in the meantime. What could have been done differently? A regulatory sandbox is one option, allowing limited activity under supervision so that TTSEC and the Central Bank can learn without opening the floodgates. A phased licensing regime is another, starting with registration and reporting, moving to full licensing with stricter capital and custody rules. Grandfathering existing operators into temporary compliance programmes would protect consumers while avoiding the economic shock of a forced shutdown. These approaches are being used elsewhere. They provide a balance between caution and opportunity. In the end, the bill is not a showstopper for digital assets in Trinidad and Tobago, but it is a brake. It slows the pace at a time when speed matters. The Government has taken the first step by legislating. It should be commended for doing so. But it must also listen to industry, learn from international peers, and remain open to amendments. Heavy hands may keep risks at bay, but they also squeeze out opportunity. The goal should be to regulate responsibly without suffocating innovation. Digital assets are not going away. The question is whether Trinidad and Tobago chooses to shape their future or merely watch from the sidelines. Rushton Paray former Mayaro MP
