The 2026 VASP Amendments: How Crypto Capital Requirements Are Changing

Georgia’s approach to virtual asset providers is maturing from a light-touch registration regime into something more detailed and more demanding. A set of amendments is formalising the powers the regulator already exercised and adding clearer obligations around capital, ownership and consumer protection. For anyone running or planning a crypto business here, the direction of travel is unmistakable.

Much of the change is about codifying what was already practice. The regulator has long handled registration, oversight, inspections and the power to restrict or remove a provider that does not comply. The amendments write those powers plainly into law and, importantly, give the regulator room to define new categories of virtual asset service through its own normative acts as the market evolves.

The more consequential additions concern capital and transparency. Providers are expected to be properly capitalised and to be fully transparent about the origin of that capital and the identity of their owners, including beneficial owners holding significant stakes. This is the regulator signalling that it wants substance behind a registration, not just a completed form, and that ownership cannot hide behind layers.

Consumer protection is the other theme. The framework is shifting toward a more user-focused stance, with the detailed rules on operational standards and capital expected to be set out in subordinate acts on a defined timeline. Until those land, providers should plan for tighter expectations rather than assume the current position will hold, because the practical compliance burden is set to rise.

What does this mean in practice? Existing providers should review their capital position, their ownership documentation and their internal controls now, so that any gap is closed before the detailed rules bite. New entrants should build to the expected standard from day one, which is almost always cheaper than retrofitting compliance into a live business under regulatory pressure.

In the meantime, the practical task is to watch the subordinate rules as they emerge and avoid being caught flat-footed when they take effect. The smart move is to assume the direction of travel rather than wait for certainty, strengthening your capital position, tidying your ownership records and tightening your controls now, while there is room to do it calmly. Businesses that wait for the final word often find themselves making the same changes later under time pressure and regulatory attention, which is more expensive and more stressful. Treating the transition as a planning exercise, with a checklist of likely requirements and a named owner for each, turns an uncertain period into a managed one. The firms that come through these shifts best are almost always the ones that prepared for the probable rather than insisting on waiting for the confirmed.

We help virtual asset businesses read where the framework is heading and prepare for it, from capital and ownership structuring to the policies the regulator will expect to see. If you want an honest assessment of how the amendments affect your model and what to do before the new rules take full effect, we can map that out with you.