Start by determining who is transferring what to whom
A common risk point is where a platform receives customer funds or assets with monetary value and then undertakes to transfer them to other persons, other accounts or other locations. The analysis must not focus solely on whether a transfer has occurred once on-chain; it must also examine whether the platform accepts payment instructions, bears delivery obligations and holds balances pending settlement. FinCEN's federal money transmission test and state law are not the same checklist, and completing federal registration does not by itself lead to the conclusion that no state-level license is required.
Stablecoins and other virtual assets may be treated separately in certain states
Take the Texas Department of Banking's 2025 revised Supervisory Memorandum 1037 as an example: it distinguishes general non-stablecoin virtual currency from stablecoins that meet the local statutory definition; the latter involves anchoring to a sovereign currency, reserve backing and redemption rights. The Department expressly states that for a transaction involving fiat currency or such stablecoins, whether it constitutes money transmission must be determined by reference to how the asset is handled. Accordingly, the proposition that "a Bitcoin business does not require an MTL in a given state" cannot be directly applied to the same company's U.S. dollar stablecoin payment product.
The New York example shows that the absence of an MTL issue does not mean the absence of other licensing issues
The New York State Department of Financial Services brings activities such as holding virtual currency on behalf of customers, buying and selling, exchanging and transferring virtual currency within the BitLicense regime, and makes clear that out-of-state companies conducting such business with New York residents may also be subject to regulation. Fiat money transmission may in addition require a separate license. Assume a platform provides only stablecoin custody and transfer to New York enterprises and does not provide U.S. dollar remittance services; even if the MTL analysis reaches a particular conclusion, the platform still cannot skip the assessment of the BitLicense route or the approved bank or trust route.
The state-by-state licensing table must be capable of constraining actual customer acquisition
It is advisable first to select a few states where there is genuine demand, set out the states where customers are located, the business steps, the assets used and the basis, and then decide whether to apply independently or adopt a cooperative arrangement permitted by local law. A licensed partner's ability to complete end-point payments does not necessarily cover the platform's front-end collection of funds or balance management. In states where licensing has not yet been completed, restrictions should be implemented in sales, customer onboarding and transaction review; it is not enough to state in a website footer that "services are not provided to that state" while continuing to accept customers from that state.
Recommended actions
- Form a separate conclusion for each target state, stating the applicable statutes and regulations, asset types, exemption conditions and review date.
- Verify with counterparties whether their licenses cover your specific model, and what your legal status is as an agent, service provider or independent counterparty to the transaction.
- Check MTL and virtual-asset-specific licenses separately, and examine whether a customer's change of address or expansion across states triggers a reassessment.
Information note: This article provides general information and does not replace legal advice based on specific facts.
References
- Supervisory Memorandum 1037, revised 28 January 2025 — Texas Department of Banking
- Virtual Currency Business Licensing—BitLicense FAQs — New York Department of Financial Services
- FinCEN Alert FIN-2024-Alert005 — FinCEN
