VASPA Submits Landmark Policy Advisory to EFCC, Charting a Course for a More Secure Virtual Asset Sector in Nigeria
The Virtual Asset Service Providers Association (VASPA), an Africa-focused advocacy group, is pleased to announce the...
Insights
Insights
/
Details
SEC’s Revised Minimum Capital for VASPs and the Global Capital Gauntlet: Is Nigeria Pricing Itself Out of the Crypto Future?
Author
Senator Ihenyen
Post Date
January 20, 2026
Views
0
A Startling Picture
As the early dust settles on the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Nigeria’s Circular No. 26-1—a document that sets out new minimum capital for capital market operators (CMOs) in Nigeria—a startling picture is emerging. With virtual asset service providers (VASPs) now included as CMOs, a comparative analysis of global digital asset regulations reveals that Nigeria’s new ₦2 billion ($1.4 million) capital requirement for Digital Asset Exchanges (DAXs) isn’t just high—it is among the most prohibitive in the world. Potentially, this stifles the very local capacity and resilience the government should be proactively supporting to ensure Nigeria’s global competitiveness in this emerging market.
The Great Disconnect: Nigeria vs. The World
When placed side-by-side with established global hubs, Nigeria’s “capital muscle” approach appears less like a protective cushion and more like a barrier to entry.
Jurisdiction | Licensing Category | Min. Capital Requirement (Approx. USD) |
European Union (MiCA 2026) | Crypto-Asset Service Provider (CASP) | $54,000–$163,000 (€50k – €150k) |
Hong Kong (SFC) | Virtual Asset Trading Platform (VATP) | $640,000 (HKD 5M paid-up) |
Mauritius / El Salvador | VASP / DASP | Varies (Highly Competitive/Low) |
South Africa | Financial Services Conduct Authority (FSCA) | No specific minimum mandated (based on financial soundness & liquidity) |
Nigeria (SEC 2026) | Digital Asset Exchange (DAX) | $1,400,000 (₦2 Billion) |
In the European Union, under the landmark Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) framework, a firm can secure a license to operate across 27 countries for a fraction of what it costs to launch in Nigeria alone. While the SEC argues that these funds ensure “resilience,” I believe—and so do many stakeholders—that Nigeria’s market, while high in adoption, is still in a nascent stage regarding institutional depth.
Analytical Insight: The Capacity Conundrum
The core of the industry’s grievance is echoed collectively, in one voice, in the public statement issued by the Blockchain Industry Coordinating Committee of Nigeria (BICCoN)—the intercommunity voice of Nigeria’s blockchain industry. The message is that at this nascent stage of the virtual asset industry, Nigeria presently lacks the strong local capacity to compete globally if the entry bar is set at an institutional level from day one. Three major concerns cannot be wished away:
Stifling Homegrown 'Unicorns'
By demanding $1.4 million in paid-up capital, the SEC is effectively looking for finished products rather than fostering growth. Most of the world’s biggest exchanges started “small” and became big. In Nigeria, the “small” innovator will become legally extinct.
The "Foreign Giant" Advantage
The high threshold creates a red carpet for well-funded foreign entities while the local innovators who also possess the technical “know-how” but lack liquid billions are sidelined. This risks a future where Nigeria’s digital economy is owned entirely by external players.
Capital Intensity vs. Market Reality
Unlike traditional financial institutions or CMOs, crypto startups are technology-first. They require capital for R&D and security, not necessarily for sitting in a dormant “paid-up” account. This is why virtually forcing $1.4 million to sit idle is, for many, a “capital death sentence.”
Premature and Commercially Unjustifiable
If Nigeria were a developed financial market like New York or London, a $1.4 million floor might be justifiable. But for an emerging ecosystem, it feels like a mismatch. In fact, it is rather premature—a global disparity that even the “foreign giants” may consider unviable, and consequently explore other markets. Regulators need to understand this economic reality. A well-intended policy, such as the one in question, can lead to unintended consequences. Nigeria needs to find a constructive path forward.
A Constructive Path Forward
To build a truly competitive industry, the SEC needs to consider a tiered licensing model, through and through:
Tier 1 (Startup)
Lower capital requirements for firms with limited transaction volumes
Tier 2 (Growth)
Graduated increases as the firm scales
Tier 3 (Institutional)
The full ₦2 billion for exchanges handling massive public retail volumes
The same tiered principle above could then be applied to other categories of licensing as well. This approach will help us develop the market while minimizing risks and threats, not stifle it with overburdening capital requirements, however unintended.
These points resonate with Nigeria’s industry associations and bodies, emphasizing the need for policymakers to truly listen. Mutual cooperation, collaboration, and inclusive consultation in policy and regulatory decision-making are not only key to developing and protecting markets that benefit the nation, but also laying a solid foundation for mutual trust and seamless industry compliance.
Closing Thoughts
Without such a ladder, as laid above, Nigeria risks winning the “stability” battle but losing the “innovation” war. By the time the June 2027 deadline arrives, we may find ourselves with a “stable” market but one with no local players—or even adequate foreign giants—left to run it.
If regulation truly serves consumers and investors, not bureaucrats or red tape, Nigeria should create a globally competitive environment where users can access cutting-edge financial innovations.
In my professional work, particularly through my work with VASPA, I am closely tracking regulatory progress in Kenya, South Africa, and Ghana, and I’m keenly aware that Nigeria must get this right to stay competitive. As adoption takes shape and markets evolve, regulation is shifting from restrictive enforcement to more developmental approaches. And as time ticks by, opportunity costs mount, further closing up Nigeria’s limited window to act. In the coming weeks, I look forward to working with other stakeholders to explore available channels for consultation with operators in the virtual assets industry, the SEC, and other relevant agencies and regulators, aiming for collaborative solutions that benefit the country. If you are a VASP and would like to endorse VASPA’s letter to support our special advocacy program concerning this issue,
Senator Ihenyen is the Lead Partner at Infusion Lawyers and currently serves as the Executive Chair of the Steering Committee, Virtual Asset Service Providers Association (VASPA). Email: executivechair@vaspa.org
Related Posts
ACTION REQUIRED: Shape the Future of Crypto Taxation in Nigeria
A Crucial Call for Participation in a Survey from the Virtual Asset Service Providers Association (VASPA)
