Most harm done to consumers in the crypto space has come not from the tokens themselves, but from the platforms handling them — the exchanges, custodians, lenders, and yield services.
Regulating What It Does, Not What It’s CalledConsumer protection rules should pick up whatever else remains. His argument strips away the technological wrapping and asks a simpler question: what does this thing actually do?
Bollen’s position, by contrast, is that building a separate system from scratch misses the point — and leaves gaps that bad actors will find.
“Opportunities for regulatory arbitrage” is how Bollen describes those gaps. Build a crypto-specific law, and someone will structure a product to fall outside it. Attach crypto to existing law based on what the product does, and that exit shrinks.
Australia Already Writing It Into LawAustralia isn’t waiting on theory. The country’s Digital Asset Framework bill, currently moving through parliament, doesn’t attempt to replace the Corporations Act.
Reports indicate the bill amends it — slotting digital asset platforms into the existing regulatory structure rather than building a lane beside it.
ASIC’s own guidance document, Information Sheet 225, has already confirmed that existing definitions of financial products and services under the Corporations Act can apply to crypto, depending on how a given asset functions.
Bollen was direct about what that means in practice. Regulators, he said, should be focused on intermediaries — the companies sitting between users and their crypto — rather than on the tokens themselves. That’s where the consumer harm has actually shown up.
Featured image from Cyber Security News, chart from TradingView
