Switzerland draws clearer lines around DeFi regulation. Some activities require licensing, some don't, and the distinctions matter.

The Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority issued updated guidance in January 2026 addressing decentralized finance (DeFi) activities and staking services under Swiss financial market law. The guidance provides clearer criteria for when these activities trigger licensing requirements, acknowledging DeFi's growth while maintaining Switzerland's approach to technology-neutral regulation.

What the guidance covers

The FINMA guidance addresses two main areas:

DeFi protocol involvement: When does operating or contributing to a DeFi protocol require authorization? FINMA distinguishes between genuinely decentralized protocols (where no central party controls operations) and protocols with identifiable operators making business decisions.

Staking services: When does providing staking services to customers require licensing? The answer depends on custody arrangements, who controls staked assets, and how the service is structured.

The DeFi distinction

FINMA's position on DeFi:

Truly decentralized protocols: If no party controls the protocol, no party requires authorization for the protocol itself. The code is the service. Users interact directly with smart contracts.

Centralized elements: If a party operates a front-end, controls upgrade keys, or makes business decisions about protocol parameters, that party may require authorization depending on the services enabled.

Service providers: Firms providing access to DeFi protocols (aggregators, interfaces, wallet integrations) may require authorization even if the underlying protocol doesn't.

The guidance doesn't declare all DeFi unregulated. It says regulation attaches to identifiable parties providing identifiable services. Truly autonomous protocols fall outside the framework; parties building businesses around those protocols often don't.

Staking service requirements

Staking services face clearer categorization:

Custodial staking: If the service provider holds customer assets and stakes on their behalf, this requires FinTech license or banking license depending on volume. The custody element triggers licensing.

Non-custodial staking tools: If the customer retains control of private keys and the service merely provides infrastructure (node operation, staking pool access), licensing requirements are limited. The customer remains in control of their assets.

Pooled staking with custody: Services that pool customer assets for staking (where customers lose direct control) face banking license requirements due to deposit-like characteristics.

Practical implications

For crypto businesses operating in or from Switzerland:

Review DeFi-related services: If you operate front-ends, provide custody, or make decisions affecting user funds, assess whether licensing applies.

Structure staking carefully: Non-custodial models have lighter requirements. Custodial models need proper licensing.

Document decentralization claims: If claiming no licensing is required due to decentralization, be prepared to demonstrate that no party controls the relevant functions.

The Swiss approach

FINMA's guidance continues Switzerland's principles-based regulation. They don't write specific DeFi rules; they apply existing financial market law concepts to new technologies. Activity that looks like banking, securities dealing, or fund management gets regulated as such, regardless of technological implementation.

This creates flexibility but also uncertainty. The guidance helps, but specific fact patterns may still require FINMA consultation. Switzerland accepts this trade-off: clear rules for clear cases, dialogue for edge cases.

For firms seeking regulatory certainty, Switzerland offers something unusual: a regulator willing to engage substantively with crypto-specific questions. FINMA's no-action letter process allows firms to seek guidance before launching. That dialogue has value even when the answer isn't "no license needed."