Japan Strengthens DeFi Regulations ― How "Regulatory Capture
The policy of the world's third-largest economy to impose KYC/AML obligations on DeFi will trigger a global chain reaction in crypto asset regulation, pushing the fundamental philosophy of decentralized finance and state control into a decisive confrontation.
── Understand in 3 points ─────────
- • The Japanese government is considering mandating KYC (Know Your Customer) and AML (Anti-Money Laundering) regulations for DeFi projects starting in early 2026.
- • The Financial Services Agency (FSA) is advancing adjustments to impose monitoring obligations on decentralized protocols equivalent to those on traditional financial institutions, through amendments to the Payment Services Act and the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act.
- • The FATF (Financial Action Task Force) has recommended that countries apply the Travel Rule to DeFi protocols since 2023, and Japan's move is in line with this international pressure.
── NOW PATTERN ─────────
Japan's DeFi regulation is a structural pattern where "regulatory capture" (the alignment of interests between existing financial institutions and regulators), "path dependency" (the "incident → stricter regulation" cycle since Mt. Gox), and the bureaucratic "backlash" against Web3 promotion policies operate as a trinity.
── Probability and Response ──────
• Base case 55% — FSA begins soliciting public comments on DeFi regulation, Cabinet decision on Payment Services Act amendment bill, JCBA publishes self-regulatory guidelines, major DeFi projects issue statements on regulatory compliance.
• Bull case 20% — LDP digital promotion faction publicly criticizes regulatory proposals, acceleration of discussions on crypto asset tax reform, FSA announces expansion of sandbox system, explicit mention of Web3 policies in Upper House election manifesto.
• Bear case 25% — Japan-related damages from large-scale DeFi hacking incidents, intensive media coverage of DeFi risks, bipartisan resolution for stricter regulation in the Diet, initiation of ISP blocking discussions, significant expansion of Digital Yen pilot.
📡 THE SIGNAL — What Happened
Why it matters: The policy of the world's third-largest economy to impose KYC/AML obligations on DeFi will trigger a global chain reaction in crypto asset regulation, pushing the fundamental philosophy of decentralized finance and state control into a decisive confrontation.
- Regulatory Trends — The Japanese government is considering mandating KYC (Know Your Customer) and AML (Anti-Money Laundering) regulations for DeFi projects starting in early 2026.
- Regulatory Trends — The Financial Services Agency (FSA) is advancing adjustments to impose monitoring obligations on decentralized protocols equivalent to those on traditional financial institutions, through amendments to the Payment Services Act and the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act.
- International Trends — The FATF (Financial Action Task Force) has recommended that countries apply the Travel Rule to DeFi protocols since 2023, and Japan's move is in line with this international pressure.
- Industry Reaction — Strong concerns about innovation suppression and talent outflow have been expressed by the Japan Cryptoasset Business Association (JCBA) and the DeFi developer community.
- Market Size — The number of registered crypto asset exchanges in Japan has reached approximately 30, and the TVL (Total Value Locked) for Japan-originated DeFi projects is estimated to have grown to tens of billions of yen.
- Political Background — The LDP Digital Society Promotion Headquarters explicitly stated the consideration of a DeFi regulatory framework in its 2024 Web3 white paper, and political consensus was forming.
- Technical Challenges — DeFi protocols are inherently decentralized structures without administrators, making it technically and legally difficult to identify the subjects of KYC obligations (front-end operators, smart contract developers, liquidity providers).
- International Comparison — The EU is gradually implementing MiCA (Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation) from late 2024, and the US SEC is also strengthening enforcement actions against DeFi protocols.
- Taxation Related — Japan's tax rate on crypto assets is up to 55% (treated as miscellaneous income), and this, combined with stricter regulations, is increasing pressure for the industry to move overseas.
- Talent Trends — Some Japanese blockchain developers are considering or have already moved to regions with flexible regulations such as Singapore, Dubai, and Switzerland.
- Security — Since 2022, hacking damages from DeFi protocols have reached billions of dollars globally per year, serving as one of the justifications for stricter regulations.
- Consumer Protection — The FSA cites a roughly 40% year-on-year increase in consumer consultations related to crypto assets in 2024 as a background for strengthening regulations.
To understand the background behind the Japanese government's move to strengthen DeFi regulations, it is necessary to decipher the three-layered structure of Japan's historical DNA of financial regulation, the domestic and international context surrounding crypto assets, and global regulatory trends.
First, Japan is a country that has historically repeated a cycle of "initial acceptance → incident occurrence → strict regulation" for financial innovation. The Mt. Gox incident in 2014 is a symbolic example. The collapse of Mt. Gox, then the world's largest Bitcoin exchange, in Tokyo, with the disappearance of approximately 850,000 BTC, instilled a sense of caution in Japanese regulators towards the new domain of crypto assets. In response to this incident, Japan amended the Payment Services Act in 2017, ahead of the rest of the world, introducing a registration system for crypto asset exchange service providers. While this was initially praised as "advanced," in reality, it reflected a regulatory philosophy that prioritized consumer protection and maintaining financial order over promoting innovation.
In 2018, the Coincheck incident occurred, resulting in the outflow of approximately 58 billion yen worth of NEM (XEM). The FSA used this as an opportunity to strengthen on-site inspections of crypto asset exchanges and issued business improvement orders to multiple exchange service providers. This incident reinforced the administrative logic that "incidents happen because regulations are lax," making the gradual tightening of regulations irreversible. Japanese regulatory authorities have a strong incentive to avoid political responsibility risks in the event of an incident, rather than to reap the fruits of innovation.
In the international context, the existence of the FATF (Financial Action Task Force) is critically important. The FATF recommended the application of the Travel Rule to crypto asset service providers (VASPs) in 2019, and in 2023, it indicated that DeFi protocols should also be included in the scope of regulation. Japan places diplomatic importance on remaining an "honor student" of the FATF. In the FATF's mutual evaluations of Japan in 2008 and 2021, some harsh assessments were received, and regulatory responses in the crypto asset sector directly impact Japan's international reputation. Behind the strengthening of DeFi regulations, there is a strong bureaucratic motivation of "not wanting to be scolded by FATF."
Meanwhile, the domestic political context cannot be overlooked. The LDP Digital Society Promotion Headquarters (formerly the NFT Policy Study Project Team) has actively made policy proposals regarding Web3 since 2022, at one point advocating a vision to "make Japan a Web3 hub." However, following global crypto asset crises such as the FTX collapse and Terra/Luna crash since 2023, the political influence of the promotion faction has declined. In its place, a regulation-strengthening faction, centered around the FSA and the National Police Agency, has emerged. DeFi regulation reflects this shift in political dynamics.
From a broader perspective, the gradual implementation of the EU's MiCA (Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation) from late 2024 has accelerated regulatory competition among major countries, including Japan. MiCA includes some DeFi protocols in its scope of regulation and imposes strict reserve requirements on stablecoin issuers. In the US, the SEC has also hinted at legal actions against Uniswap and Lido Finance, indicating that regulatory pressure on DeFi is strengthening globally. Japan's move is part of this international regulatory convergence, positioning it within a structural trend rather than as an isolated policy decision.
Technically, the regulation of DeFi protocols inherently contains a fundamental contradiction. DeFi's design philosophy is "trustless" and "permissionless," meaning that a "responsible entity" subject to KYC/AML structurally does not exist. If Japanese regulatory authorities target front-end operators or DAO (Decentralized Autonomous Organization) governance token holders for regulation, the very decentralization of the protocol is undermined. This represents a fundamental tension between the intent of regulation and the technical essence of DeFi, presenting a structural challenge that cannot be resolved by mere legal amendments.
The delta: With the Japanese government's full-fledged shift towards strengthening DeFi regulations, the contradiction between the policy vision of "aiming to be a Web3 hub" and the bureaucratic priority of "maintaining financial order" has surfaced. This places Japan's DeFi ecosystem at a structural turning point, forcing a choice between "adapting to regulations domestically or relocating overseas."
🔍 BETWEEN THE LINES — What the News Isn't Saying
Officially, "investor protection" and "anti-money laundering measures" are cited as reasons for regulation, but there are several hidden motives behind them. Firstly, the FSA is looking ahead to the introduction of the Digital Yen (CBDC) and is structurally wary of private decentralized financial infrastructure preempting the use cases of state-controlled digital currency. Secondly, the existing crypto asset exchange industry is intensifying its lobbying efforts behind the scenes to eliminate unfair competitive conditions with DeFi protocols, influencing regulatory design. Thirdly, with the 2026 Upper House election approaching, the ruling party's election strategy to minimize political risks in the event of crypto asset-related scandals dictates the timing of regulatory acceleration.
NOW PATTERN
Regulatory Capture × Path Dependency × Backlash
Japan's DeFi regulation is a structural pattern where "regulatory capture" (the alignment of interests between existing financial institutions and regulators), "path dependency" (the "incident → stricter regulation" cycle since Mt. Gox), and the bureaucratic "backlash" against Web3 promotion policies operate as a trinity.
Intersection of Dynamics
The three dynamics of "regulatory capture," "path dependency," and "backlash" do not operate independently but mutually reinforce each other, making the policy outcome of stricter DeFi regulation almost inevitable.
First, "path dependency" structurally dictates the direction of regulatory tightening, and then "regulatory capture" embeds the interests of existing financial players into regulatory design. "Backlash" then neutralizes political counterbalances (Web3 proponents), removing resistance to stricter regulation. This three-layered structure enables policy outcomes that would not have been achieved by any single dynamic alone.
Specifically, without path dependency, a flexible regulatory approach considering DeFi's technical characteristics could have been an option. Without regulatory capture, the logic of "leveling the playing field" with existing exchanges would not have influenced regulatory design. Without backlash, the LDP's Web3 promotion faction could have functioned as a counterweight to the FSA, potentially maintaining gradual regulation.
Even more importantly, these three dynamics form a "positive feedback loop." The more regulations are strengthened, the more the compliance industry expands (reinforcing regulatory capture), the more the political cost of deregulation rises (deepening path dependency), and the more the narrative of innovation promotion weakens (normalizing backlash). Once this loop is established, a change in direction becomes extremely difficult unless there is an external shock (e.g., a country with lax regulations achieving significant economic success with crypto assets). Japan's DeFi ecosystem is being forced to choose between adapting or exiting within this structural force field.
📚 PATTERN HISTORY
1998-2001: Japan's Financial Big Bang and Strengthening of Bank Regulations
Following the promotion of financial liberalization, regulations rapidly tightened in the wake of the non-performing loan crisis. The Financial Services Agency was established, and the institutional foundation for stricter regulation was made permanent.
Structural Similarity to Current Situation: In Japan, the phase of regulatory tightening overwhelmingly lasts longer in the cycle of liberalization and regulation. Once established, regulatory infrastructure self-propagates, making a return to deregulation difficult.
2006-2008: Amendment of the Money Lending Business Act (Consumer Finance Regulation)
The tightening of the Money Lending Business Act, ostensibly for consumer protection, dealt a devastating blow to the consumer finance industry. The reduction of maximum interest rates and the abolition of "gray zone" interest rates led many major consumer finance companies into management crises, forcing them under the umbrella of banks.
Structural Similarity to Current Situation: When regulatory tightening in Japan proceeds under the guise of "consumer protection," it can irreversibly alter the structure of an entire industry. The innovation vacuum created after regulation tends to be filled by overseas players.
2014-2017: From Mt. Gox Collapse to Payment Services Act Amendment
Triggered by the large-scale collapse of a crypto asset exchange, Japan introduced a registration system for crypto asset exchange service providers ahead of the world. Initially praised as "advanced," it later became stricter, revealing its aspect of innovation suppression.
Structural Similarity to Current Situation: Japan has a high capacity to introduce regulations in response to crises, but subsequent fine-tuning and flexibility are institutionally and bureaucratically difficult, leading to a repeated pattern of regulatory rigidity.
2020-2023: China's Comprehensive Ban on Crypto Assets
China comprehensively banned crypto asset mining and trading in 2021. As a result, the mining industry relocated to the US, Kazakhstan, and other countries, and China-originated DeFi projects moved overseas. Centralization towards the Digital Yuan, a CBDC, progressed.
Structural Similarity to Current Situation: Excessive regulation of crypto assets leads to the outflow of the industry abroad, but regulators may consider this an acceptable cost. National digital currency strategies and crypto asset regulations are closely linked.
2023-2025: EU MiCA Implementation and Global Regulatory Convergence
The EU became the first in the world to implement a comprehensive regulatory framework for crypto assets, serving as a reference point (benchmark) for other countries' regulatory designs. Countries including Japan are moving towards regulatory designs that are mindful of MiCA.
Structural Similarity to Current Situation: In crypto asset regulation, the "Brussels Effect" (global spillover of EU regulations) is at play, and a country's regulatory choices are strongly influenced by the pressure of international regulatory convergence.
Pattern Revealed by History
What emerges from historical patterns is the "ratchet effect" (irreversibility effect) of financial regulation in Japan. Once regulations are strengthened, a reversal towards relaxation becomes extremely difficult, with each crisis or incident adding a new layer of regulation. This structure has been consistent from the Financial Big Bang to crypto asset regulation, and DeFi regulation is positioned as the latest example of this pattern.
Particularly important is the structural characteristic of Japanese regulation where the framework of "consumer protection" is politically extremely powerful, and narratives opposing it (innovation promotion, international competitiveness) are placed in a politically inferior position. The amendment of the Money Lending Business Act devastated the consumer finance industry, and crypto asset regulation kept entry barriers for exchanges high. In both cases, despite the recognition of regulatory side effects (innovation suppression, industry outflow), policy corrections were not made.
The two extreme cases of China's comprehensive ban and the EU's MiCA implementation illustrate the spectrum of options in DeFi regulation. Japan will not implement a comprehensive ban, but it is highly likely to move in a direction close to MiCA-type comprehensive regulation. However, Japan's regulatory environment, with compliance costs higher than in the EU, carries the risk of functioning as a de facto "soft ban." History suggests that Japanese regulators have accepted "industry outflow due to regulation" as a tolerable cost, and it is highly likely that DeFi will be no exception.
🔮 WHAT'S NEXT
The FSA will submit amendments to the Payment Services Act and the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act to the Diet in 2026, gradually introducing KYC/AML obligations for front-end operators of DeFi protocols and DAO operating entities. Full enforcement will begin in early 2027, but the basic regulatory policy and main obligations will be finalized in 2026. Specifically, corporations and individuals operating DeFi protocol front-ends will be subject to user identity verification obligations, suspicious transaction reporting obligations, and transaction record retention obligations. However, a compromise will be made where smart contracts themselves and open-source code developers are not directly subject to regulation. In this scenario, some Japan-originated DeFi projects will relocate overseas, but major players will choose to adapt to the regulations. Increased compliance costs will lead to the consolidation/elimination of small and medium-sized projects, accelerating industry monopolization. Japan's domestic DeFi TVL will decrease by 20-30% in the short term but will recover in the medium to long term due to institutional investor entry. Crypto asset exchanges will proceed with integration with DeFi services, forming a unique Japanese model of "regulation-adapted DeFi." Internationally, Japan will receive some recognition from FATF, but a decline in innovation competitiveness will be unavoidable.
Implications for Investment/Action: FSA begins soliciting public comments on DeFi regulation, Cabinet decision on Payment Services Act amendment bill, JCBA publishes self-regulatory guidelines, major DeFi projects issue statements on regulatory compliance.
The digital promotion faction within the LDP will make a comeback, demanding significant revisions to the FSA's regulatory proposals. Ahead of the 2026 Upper House election (scheduled for July), the importance of innovation policy will be re-recognized within the ruling party, and DeFi regulations will be formulated in a significantly more relaxed manner than initially anticipated. Specifically, regulations for DeFi protocols will be based on a "risk-based approach," with protocols below a certain transaction volume being exempt from regulation. Furthermore, the regulatory sandbox system will be expanded, allowing for a certain period of regulatory exemption for new DeFi projects. Crypto asset tax reform (transition to separate taxation, 20% tax rate) will also proceed simultaneously, leading to an overall improvement in Japan's crypto asset environment. For this scenario to materialize, multiple conditions must overlap: ① the ruling party's need for policy differentiation before the 2026 Upper House election, ② the resurgence of the industry's political influence due to a rapid recovery in overseas crypto asset markets, and ③ the restoration of the Web3 promotion narrative through the international success of Japan-originated projects (such as Astar). If realized, Japan's DeFi TVL could grow to hundreds of billions of yen by 2027, positioning it to compete with Singapore as an Asian Web3 hub. However, the challenge of coordinating with FATF would remain.
Implications for Investment/Action: LDP digital promotion faction publicly criticizes regulatory proposals, acceleration of discussions on crypto asset tax reform, FSA announces expansion of sandbox system, explicit mention of Web3 policies in Upper House election manifesto.
In 2026, large-scale DeFi-related illicit incidents (hacking, fraud, money laundering) occur domestically and internationally, rapidly increasing public opinion for stricter regulation. The FSA introduces regulations significantly stricter than initially anticipated, making it virtually impossible to provide DeFi services within Japan. Specifically, all services providing access to DeFi protocols (wallets, front-ends, API providers) will be subject to registration obligations equivalent to those for crypto asset exchange businesses, and criminal penalties will be imposed for providing services without registration. Furthermore, ISP-level blocking of Japanese residents' access to overseas DeFi protocols will be considered. While this would not amount to China's comprehensive ban on crypto assets, it would effectively be close to a "soft ban," severely restricting DeFi usage within Japan. In this scenario, the majority of Japan-originated DeFi projects will fully relocate overseas, and the outflow of blockchain developers will accelerate. Japan's crypto asset ecosystem will be centralized into CeFi (centralized exchanges), and in conjunction with the promotion of the Digital Yen (CBDC), a transition to a state-controlled digital financial system will progress. Japan will effectively drop out of international Web3 innovation competition, and the impact will extend beyond the crypto asset sector to adjacent areas such as AI and FinTech.
Implications for Investment/Action: Japan-related damages from large-scale DeFi hacking incidents, intensive media coverage of DeFi risks, bipartisan resolution for stricter regulation in the Diet, initiation of ISP blocking discussions, significant expansion of Digital Yen pilot.
Key Triggers to Watch
- Start of public comment solicitation by the FSA regarding DeFi regulation: April-June 2026
- Cabinet decision on amendments to the Payment Services Act and the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act: Autumn extraordinary Diet session 2026 (October-December)
- Results of the 2026 Upper House election and policy statements by the new administration: July 2026
- Publication of FATF's follow-up review results for Japan: Late 2026 - Early 2027
- Occurrence of large-scale DeFi-related illicit incidents domestically and internationally: Unpredictable (constant monitoring required)
🔄 TRACKING LOOP
Next Trigger: FSA Financial System Council DeFi Regulation Working Group April-May 2026 (scheduled) — The specific scope of regulation (whether limited to front-ends or expanded to liquidity providers) will be revealed here for the first time.
Continuation of this Pattern: Tracking Theme: Japan's DeFi Regulatory Legislative Process — Next milestones are the start of FSA public comment solicitation (scheduled for mid-2026) and the trend of bill submission in the extraordinary Diet session after the Upper House election.
🎯 ORACLE DECLARATION
Prediction Question: By December 31, 2026, will the Japanese government promulgate a law or cabinet order imposing KYC obligations on front-end operators of DeFi protocols?
Judgment Deadline: 2026-12-31 | Judgment Criteria: To be determined by whether a law (e.g., amendment to the Payment Services Act) or cabinet order stipulating KYC/identity verification obligations for front-end operators of DeFi protocols has been published in the Official Gazette as of December 31, 2026. Public comment solicitations or council reports will be judged as "NO." Passage and promulgation of a law by the Diet will be judged as "YES."
How do you read it? Participate in the prediction →
