Nigeria virtual assets regulation entered a new phase on July 18, 2026, when President Bola Tinubu announced the Presidential Executive Order on Virtual Assets Coordination, 2026.
The order responds to a problem that has troubled Nigeria’s digital-asset industry for years: cryptocurrency, stablecoins and tokenised assets do not fit neatly within the traditional boundaries of money, payments, commodities and securities. Different regulators consequently supervised different parts of the market, sometimes creating overlaps and leaving other activities insufficiently covered.
The new framework does not ban virtual assets or create a single regulator with unlimited authority. It establishes a coordination system led by a Virtual Asset Council chaired by the Central Bank of Nigeria. The Nigeria Revenue Service and Securities and Exchange Commission serve as vice-chairs, while the Nigerian Financial Intelligence Unit and Office of the National Security Adviser are members.
For fintech founders, the central message is clear: Nigeria is moving away from regulatory uncertainty and towards supervised participation. However, operating legally will require more capital, stronger internal controls and greater cooperation with regulators.
How Nigeria Virtual Assets Regulation Changes the System
The executive order creates a Virtual Asset Council to coordinate policy and a Virtual Asset Office to manage information sharing, applications and reporting. The Office’s secretariat will be located at the CBN and supported by an integrated supervisory technology platform.
However, the CBN has not simply taken over the SEC’s responsibilities. The Presidency states that the order does not create another regulator, transfer statutory powers or remove the independence of existing institutions.
Instead, licensing will depend on what a company does and the type of asset involved.
Activities involving securities, investment products, token offerings and securities-like digital assets will remain primarily under the SEC. The Investments and Securities Act 2025 expressly authorises the SEC to register and regulate virtual asset service providers and digital asset operators.
The CBN will supervise payment, settlement, custody and related services involving virtual assets that are not classified as securities. This gives the CBN a clearer role in stablecoin payments, banking relationships, financial stability, monetary sovereignty and virtual-asset settlement.
Where it is unclear whether a product belongs under the SEC or CBN, the Council is expected to resolve the classification rather than forcing a startup to negotiate separately with several agencies.
This distinction will be especially important for hybrid products. A token used mainly as an investment may fall under the SEC, while a stablecoin or wallet used mainly for payments could come under the CBN. A custody company may require SEC approval when holding tokenised securities but CBN authorisation when safeguarding non-security payment assets.
The exact boundaries are not yet final. As of July 24, 2026, the Council still has time to produce the Harmonised Implementation Framework ordered within 30 days. The CBN is also expected to publish details of a virtual-assets regulatory sandbox, while the Nigeria Revenue Service will issue a sector-specific tax policy. A longer-term Virtual Assets White Paper is still being finalised.
Startups should therefore treat the executive order as an important policy direction, not as the complete operating manual.
What Virtual Asset Startups Must Do
Before the new executive order, Nigeria had already begun creating a formal licensing route. The SEC’s Accelerated Regulatory Incubation Programme applies to local and foreign businesses offering virtual-asset or digital-investment services in or to Nigeria.
Applicants must generally be incorporated in Nigeria, have a resident chief executive or managing director, present a credible business plan and demonstrate the capacity to conduct the proposed activity.
The application process includes an initial assessment, eligibility review, formal application and Approval-in-Principle. Approval-in-Principle allows a company to operate within a restricted regulatory-incubation scope. It should not be described as an unrestricted or permanent licence.
Required documentation includes corporate records, audited accounts, operational and risk-management plans, evidence of solvency, information about the technology being used and at least four sponsored principal officers. Applicants may also require a no-objection letter from another regulator and evidence of registration with the NFIU.
The current ARIP processing fee is ₦2 million and is non-refundable. This is only one part of the compliance cost. Startups must also budget for lawyers, auditors, compliance officers, cybersecurity assessments, transaction-monitoring systems, data protection, insurance or fidelity bonds and regular regulatory reporting.
The SEC’s revised minimum-capital requirements are more significant. Ancillary VASPs require ₦300 million, digital-asset intermediaries and token platform operators require ₦500 million, while digital-asset offering and real-world asset tokenisation platforms require ₦1 billion. Digital-asset exchanges and custodians require ₦2 billion. Existing entities have until June 30, 2027, to comply, subject to possible case-by-case transitional arrangements.
These thresholds could strengthen the market by filtering out poorly funded operators. They could also place direct licensing beyond the reach of early-stage startups.
Smaller companies may respond by developing business-to-business technology for licensed operators rather than holding customer assets directly. Others may form partnerships, raise larger institutional rounds or limit their products to activities that carry lower capital requirements.
Anti-money-laundering compliance will be unavoidable. Operators must identify customers, retain records, monitor transactions, report suspicious activity and implement the FATF “travel rule,” which requires originator and beneficiary information to accompany qualifying virtual-asset transfers.
SEC participants must also report operational incidents, fraud, customer complaints and data breaches. Regulators can conduct inspections and require regular trading, financial and compliance reports. Failure to meet ARIP conditions can result in financial penalties, suspension or withdrawal from the programme.
What It Means for Different Fintech Businesses
For cryptocurrency exchanges, the framework creates a clearer route into Nigeria but also raises the cost of entry. Busha and Quidax are listed by the SEC as digital-asset exchange participants under ARIP. In July 2026, the SEC also announced the admission of GIGX Technologies and KuCoin Nigeria. Luno separately announced that its Nigerian entity had received Approval-in-Principle, while Yellow Card states that its Nigerian ARIP application remains pending.
For these companies, regulatory status may become an important competitive advantage. Banks, corporate clients and investors are more likely to work with an exchange that appears on an official register and can demonstrate audited controls. Startups must still communicate carefully: admission into a sandbox or incubation programme is not the same as receiving final registration.
Global exchanges such as Binance and Coinbase will not necessarily escape Nigerian regulation because they are headquartered abroad. The SEC framework applies to providers offering services in or to Nigeria. The coordinated system also makes it harder for operators to exploit gaps between agencies.
Stablecoin providers could gain from a clearer path for regulated digital payments and cross-border settlement. Stablecoins may help businesses receive international payments faster or protect working capital from settlement delays. However, the CBN will examine their reserve structure, effect on the naira, settlement arrangements and potential use outside authorised foreign-exchange channels.
Tokenisation platforms could be among the largest beneficiaries. The SEC register already includes companies testing real-estate tokenisation and digital custody. Clearer rules may support fractional ownership of property, commodities, private investments and other real-world assets. These platforms will still need credible asset verification, custody, valuation, investor disclosures and mechanisms for enforcing ownership rights outside the blockchain.
Digital wallets and custody companies will face higher cybersecurity expectations because they control assets that may be difficult to recover after theft. The regulatory framework should encourage segregation of customer assets, stronger access controls, incident-response plans and clear procedures for withdrawals and complaints.
Companies such as Flutterwave, Moniepoint, Zone and Chipper Cash are not automatically VASPs merely because they operate payment infrastructure. Their exposure depends on whether they provide virtual-asset services directly or supply banking, payment or settlement services to licensed operators.
The CBN’s existing bank-account guidelines already permit regulated financial institutions to maintain designated accounts for eligible VASPs while imposing transaction monitoring, reporting and settlement controls. Under the coordinated system, payment companies and banks could become important bridges between licensed digital-asset platforms and Nigeria’s financial system.
Patricia’s earlier security and customer-fund difficulties illustrate why cybersecurity, custody controls and transparent communication matter. Regulation cannot prevent every failure, but it can require stronger controls before a company receives broad access to consumers.
For venture capital investors, certainty can improve due diligence and exit planning. A founder can identify the relevant regulator, expected capital and pathway to market. The trade-off is that investors may need to fund compliance much earlier, while unlicensed consumer-facing experiments become harder to justify.
Nigeria Compared with Other Regulatory Markets
Nigeria’s model is becoming more coordinated, but it remains less consolidated than some international regimes.
South Africa classifies crypto assets as financial products and requires crypto-asset service providers to obtain Financial Sector Conduct Authority licences. By March 2026, the country had 310 licensed providers, giving startups a comparatively mature licensing reference point.
Kenya enacted its Virtual Asset Service Providers Act in 2025 and published draft regulations in 2026. Its system is moving towards activity-based licensing, governance requirements and AML supervision, making it similar to Nigeria’s direction but still under implementation.
Ghana’s Virtual Asset Service Providers Act 2025 created a legal foundation for registration, licensing and supervision, with the Bank of Ghana leading implementation during 2026.
Dubai uses a specialist regulator, VARA, which requires businesses to obtain activity-specific licences before offering virtual-asset services in or from the emirate, excluding the Dubai International Financial Centre.
The European Union’s MiCA framework provides one harmonised regime for issuers and crypto-asset service providers across member states. It introduces authorisation, disclosures, capital, operational resilience, market-abuse and consumer-protection requirements, including specific rules for stablecoins.
The United Kingdom currently requires qualifying crypto businesses to register for anti-money-laundering supervision. A broader Financial Services and Markets Act regime is expected to begin on October 25, 2027, with its authorisation window opening in September 2026.
Singapore regulates digital-payment-token services under its payments framework and applies a deliberately high licensing threshold, especially to businesses operating from Singapore while serving customers mainly overseas. It also has a separate framework for qualifying regulated stablecoins.
Nigeria’s distinguishing feature is its coordination council. Rather than placing every virtual-asset activity under one specialist regulator, it preserves the CBN, SEC, tax and financial-intelligence mandates while creating a system for resolving overlaps.
Regulation Could Grow the Market, If Implementation Is Clear
Nigeria’s framework could improve investor confidence by reducing uncertainty, exposing fraudulent operators and giving legitimate businesses a recognised route into the banking system.
Nigeria also has strong commercial reasons to regulate rather than ignore virtual assets. Chainalysis estimated that the country received approximately $59 billion in cryptocurrency value between July 2023 and June 2024, and its 2025 research continued to identify Nigeria as one of the world’s major adoption markets.
The opportunity extends beyond speculative trading. Regulated blockchain infrastructure could support cheaper cross-border payments, transparent supply-chain finance, tokenised investment, digital identity, programmable settlement and financial products for customers underserved by traditional institutions.
The risk is that excessively high capital and compliance requirements could favour large exchanges while discouraging local experimentation. Regulation may also fail to create confidence if licensing decisions remain slow, classifications are inconsistent or approved platforms continue to face banking and telecommunications restrictions.
Nigeria therefore needs more than an executive order. It needs published implementation timelines, coordinated application processes, clear stablecoin rules, predictable taxation, proportional requirements for smaller innovators and effective enforcement against companies that deliberately avoid supervision.
For startups, the practical response is not to pause innovation. It is to design compliance into the product from the beginning. Founders should determine whether they handle customer assets, issue tokens, facilitate payments, provide investment exposure or supply infrastructure to another regulated company.
Nigeria’s new virtual-assets framework may increase the cost of building a blockchain business. It may also make successful companies more investable, bankable and capable of expanding beyond informal peer-to-peer markets.
The outcome will depend on whether regulation becomes a bridge into the formal economy or another barrier that only the largest operators can cross.
Don’t miss important articles during the week. Subscribe to Techbuild weekly digest for updates
