In June 2026 we submitted a response to the FCA's Consultation Paper CP26/13 on Cryptoasset Perimeter Guidance (PERG). PS26/18, published on 16 September 2026, sets out the FCA's final position. This post reviews where we got to.

What we argued

Our central submission was that the proposed guidance applied a regulatory framework designed for financial intermediaries — firms that take on credit risk, custody risk, and informational asymmetry relative to their clients — to activities that are architecturally incapable of generating those risks. We focused on three areas: delegated staking on non-custodial protocols; liquid staking tokens; and non-custodial wallet provision. Across all three, we argued that the substance of what these activities do — and, critically, what they cannot do — should drive the perimeter analysis rather than surface-level analogies to traditional financial products.

Where the FCA has moved

The most significant practical development concerns the arranging deals activity and its application to wallet software and other technical infrastructure. In our response, we argued that there was no principled basis for the asymmetry between the arranging staking activity — which benefits from a technical services exclusion for validator node operators — and the arranging deals activity, which did not. We called for an equivalent exclusion. PS26/18 announces that the Government has laid a new Statutory Instrument which introduces exactly that: a technical services exclusion from the arranging deals in qualifying cryptoassets activity. The FCA is clear that this is a legislative change rather than a guidance decision, and will consult on amendments to PERG to reflect it in Q4 2026. We welcome it.

On the staking guidance itself, the FCA has made a number of targeted amendments that track arguments made in our submission and those of other respondents. It has clarified that the provision of information or analytics alone, without further involvement in the staking process, is unlikely to constitute the regulated activity of arranging qualifying cryptoasset staking. It has tightened and contextualised the "adds value" test so that it cannot be applied in isolation to bring a service within scope. And it has aligned the technical services exclusion language more closely with the wording of the legislation — addressing concerns raised by several respondents, ourselves included, that the consultation draft's terminology could inadvertently narrow the exclusion's reach.

The FCA has also expanded its guidance on the "by way of business" test and territorial scope in response to widespread feedback. Greater clarity here is genuinely useful for infrastructure providers assessing their position.

Where we did not succeed

On liquid staking tokens, the FCA has confirmed its view that LSTs are unlikely to fall within the "solely a record of value or contractual rights" exclusion from the qualifying cryptoasset definition. We argued the contrary — that an LST's entire economic content is its relationship with the underlying staked asset and that it is, in substance, a receipt — and we stand by that analysis. The FCA has nevertheless held firm on this point, and practitioners working with LST structures will need to engage with it on the FCA's terms.

On the stablecoin payments exclusion, we argued that limiting it to UK Qualifying Stablecoins — stablecoins issued by FCA-authorised firms — would leave the exclusion largely without practical effect before the October 2027 go-live, since the major global stablecoins by volume are unlikely to obtain FCA authorisation before that date. The exclusion remains scoped to UKQS. This is a genuine gap that the industry will need to work around in the interim.

On the proportionality concerns we raised in relation to mid-tier validator operators — where we showed that compliance costs could represent a substantial fraction of annual revenue for a non-custodial staking business with no access to client assets — the FCA's response is essentially that perimeter guidance is not the right instrument for cost-benefit analysis of this kind, and that firms with specific business model questions should engage through the pre-application support service. The underlying legislative framework is what drives the compliance burden, and the FCA cannot address that through PERG.

The legislative dimension

The theme that PERG cannot create, widen, or narrow the perimeter established by Parliament, not unreasonably, runs through the FCA's response to nearly every substantive concern in this consultation.  

Several of the points we raised, including the case for a broader definition of the technical services exclusion, the treatment of non-custodial staking models whose risk profile differs fundamentally from custodial intermediation and the proportionality of the compliance burden for infrastructure operators, require legislative action rather than guidance clarification. The FCA indicated in several places that it has conveyed industry concerns to HM Treasury. The new SI already introduces one significant change in response to industry feedback. We remain hopeful that the ongoing legislative work the Government indicated it intends to pursue, including the SI on which the FCA plans to consult in Q4, will create further opportunities to address points that are beyond the purview of FCA.  

The international comparison we set out in our response remains relevant context for those discussions. The UK's proposed treatment of delegated staking and wallet provision sits, on current evidence, at the more expansive end of the global regulatory spectrum. That is not an argument for lower standards: our position remains that standards should be calibrated to the risks actually present in specific activities.

What comes next

PS26/18 is not the final word. The FCA has committed to a further consultation in Q4 2026 on PERG amendments reflecting the new SI, which will cover additional exclusions for technical services in the arranging deals context, activities involving UK Qualifying Stablecoins, and the temporary settlement exclusion. It has also flagged continued work on DeFi, distributed ledger technology, cryptoasset derivatives, and its approach to resolution in cryptoasset firm failures.

The application window for authorisation under the new regime opens on 30 September 2026 and closes on 28 February 2027 for firms wishing to use the transitional arrangements. The regime itself commences on 25 October 2027. Firms that have been operating under MLR registration and need to consider their position under FSMA should be doing so now.

We will continue to engage with the FCA and HM Treasury as the framework develops, including through the forthcoming PERG consultation and any further calls for input on the areas flagged above. The Solana Research Institute remains available to provide technical and analytical input on permissionless blockchain infrastructure to any part of government or the regulatory system working through these questions.