Digital asset regulation and tokenization in the Netherlands

In the Netherlands, a business issuing or managing a tokenized asset must separate three decisions: the right represented by the token, the service it will provide and the authority handling each component. AFM and DNB share supervision with different responsibilities for services, prudential requirements and issuers.

This separation matters particularly for custody and real estate assets. Client protection arrangements must work legally and in daily operations; representing an investment through a token does not replace the deed and registration required to transfer real estate.

Classifying the asset after the transition ended

Classification under MiCA is the starting point. MiCA is implemented in the Netherlands through the Uitvoeringswet verordening cryptoactiva (Act of December 11, 2024, Staatsblad 2024, 415, in force since February 4, 2025) and the Uitvoeringsbesluit MiCA en TFR (Staatsblad 2024, 404), which designates the AFM and DNB and sets the end of the transitional period on June 30, 2025. Crypto-asset services within the scope of the regulation require a valid authorization route, while tokens constituting financial instruments are assessed under securities and investment legislation. Issuing ARTs or EMTs has different conditions from providing custody, exchange or advice involving those tokens.

The Dutch transitional period lasted six months, compared with the eighteen months allowed by the EU regulation. According to the official AFM register, providers relying on former DNB registration could continue until June 30, 2025. In October 2026 that historical register is not an alternative to MiCA authorization. The entity, its services and its current cross-border access must be verified.

How AFM and DNB share supervision

The AFM describes shared supervision with DNB. The AFM leads supervision of CASPs, other crypto-assets and market abuse. DNB oversees CASP prudential requirements, including certain qualifying holdings, and leads ART and EMT issuer supervision. Under MiCA, supervision of compliance with the Anti-Money Laundering and Anti-Terrorist Financing Act (Wwft) and the Sanctions Act also largely moved from DNB to the AFM; the amended Wwft keeps supervision of banks and electronic money institutions providing crypto-asset services with DNB. This allocation cannot be reduced to one authority registering and the other authorizing every activity.

There is an additional distinction for issuers: white paper guidance gives the AFM responsibilities for these documents and ART and EMT marketing communications, while DNB leads supervision under their MiCA titles. Applications and amendments must follow applicable joint instructions. Supervisory responsibility also depends on the document submitted.

What a license establishes and what a white paper establishes

The AFM processes Article 63 CASP applications and Article 60 notifications from eligible financial entities. The latter route is limited to specified categories and services; it is not a general exemption for any previously licensed business. Passporting from another Member State requires the relevant procedure rather than a second Dutch license solely for market entry. The scope differs from the former regime: the former DNB registration was a national registration without an EU passport, whereas MiCA authorization allows the authorized services to be provided in other Member States through that procedure.

Applications must demonstrate effective governance, resources and control over outsourced activities. Documentation must describe the actual business and requested services. The public register identifies permitted services; these should be checked against the custody, exchange, platform or advice being contracted, without attributing coverage absent from the permission.

Notification of MiCA Title II and IV white papers is not regulatory approval. Entity permission must be separated from the asset disclosure procedure. Presenting marketing as regulator-backed because a document was received may mislead customers about product quality or protection.

Why a property token needs clearly defined rights

Tokenized shares, bonds or units must be assessed by their rights and structure. The DLT Pilot Regime described by the AFM provides for specific trading and settlement infrastructure permissions, with conditions and possible exemptions. It does not turn every issuance into an authorized infrastructure or remove assessment of the instrument, offer and associated investment services.

For real estate, Kadaster explains that transfer requires a Dutch civil-law notarial deed and land registration. A token may be linked to a claim, interest or contract concerning property, but that connection does not replace registered transfer. Buyers must be told which right they acquire and against which entity they can enforce it.

Segregating assets and controlling payments and technology

The AFM FAQs distinguish legal and operational segregation of client assets. Using a separate foundation, stichting derdengelden, requires conditions concerning purpose, responsibilities and control. Incorporation or separate wallets alone are insufficient. The CASP retains custody responsibilities and must identify positions and return assets under its authorized model.

Anti-money laundering, sanctions and transfer obligations are addressed through mechanisms including the 2026 supervisory questionnaire. The AFM also requires resilience and technology dependency documentation. For tax purposes, the Wet implementatie EU-richtlijn gegevensuitwisseling cryptoactiva (Staatsblad 2026, 79), which transposes with effect from January 1, 2026, the EU directive on administrative cooperation as applied to crypto-assets (DAC8), requires providers to identify their customers' tax residence and to report information on their transactions for the previous year by January 31 each year. Where the model also constitutes a payment service, PSD2 and DNB's remit require assessment; a CASP license does not automatically cover that function.

What to resolve before submitting a Dutch project

Before applying, map the relationships between issuer, CASP, the entity holding funds and payment providers. Each contract should match the entity and services shown in registers and the responsibilities retained by the authorized provider.

For issuance, distinguish white paper notification from approval required under the specific regime. If the asset represents real estate investment, investors must understand whether they obtain ownership, an equity interest or a claim, and which formalities make that right enforceable. The ongoing European review should also be monitored: on December 4, 2025, the Commission put forward a proposal for a regulation, COM(2025) 943, which would reform the DLT Pilot Regime and centralize in ESMA the authorization and supervision of crypto-asset service providers, except credit institutions and financial entities operating under Article 60 of MiCA. It is a proposal pending adoption, not law in force, but it may affect the choice of location in the medium term.

To understand how this framework applies to your project, discuss your case with our team.