New to this series? This is the final article in a three-part series on Philippine crypto regulation. Part 1, "The CASP Rules Are Here. Now What?", maps the current regulatory landscape including the SEC CASP Rules and the BSP VASP moratorium. Part 2, "The Axie Collapse Told Us Everything. We Didn't Listen.", examines the consumer protection gap exposed by the play-to-earn collapse and why the CASP Rules do not fully close it. This article builds on both.

The Philippines entered 2026 with more crypto regulation than it has ever had. The SEC CASP Rules are in force. Enforcement has followed. In March 2024, the SEC asked the NTC to block Binance for operating without a license, and ISPs complied within days (BusinessWorld, 2024). In December 2025, BitPinas reported that the BSP used Section 902-N of its Manual of Regulations for Non-Bank Financial Institutions, as updated under BSP Circular No. 1206, to direct the blocking of approximately fifty unlicensed platforms including Coinbase and Gemini (BitPinas, 2025c). The FATF grey list is behind us. By any measure, the regulatory posture has hardened.

And yet the Chainalysis 2025 Global Crypto Adoption Index places the Philippines 9th globally, down from 2nd in 2022 (Chainalysis, 2025). Eleven million crypto users. An estimated $40 billion in annual transaction value (Cruz Marcelo, 2025). The user base is enormous. The structural maturity is not keeping pace with it.

The problem is not that the Philippines lacks regulation. It is that the regulations it has do not yet speak to each other coherently. There are two licensing regimes with no joint classification standard. There is a stablecoin on the market with good audit practices and no circular requiring the next one to match them. There is a tax framework that applies to crypto by analogy but gives practitioners no authoritative guidance. There is a consumer protection regime that covers exchanges but not the income-dependent platform users who bore the worst losses in this country's crypto history.

Five specific fixes would close those gaps. None require new legislation. All of them are within reach of the agencies that already exist.

1. A Joint SEC-BSP Digital Asset Classification Circular

The core problem in Philippine crypto compliance today is that two agencies govern overlapping terrain with no published agreement on where one's jurisdiction ends and the other's begins. BSP Circular 1108 says the offering and sale of virtual assets falls under the SEC. The CASP Rules require SEC registration for crypto-asset services. Neither instrument tells a token issuer, a stablecoin operator, or a DeFi protocol developer which agency has primary authority over their specific activity. Practitioners navigate this daily through legal interpretation, not regulatory clarity.

The fix is a jointly issued SEC-BSP circular that creates a public digital asset taxonomy: payment stablecoins under BSP primary oversight, tokenized securities under SEC primary oversight, hybrid assets under a defined joint-review process with a published timeline. It does not need to resolve every edge case on day one. It needs to exist, be binding on both agencies, and be updated on a regular schedule.

The institutional mechanism for this already exists. The Anti-Money Laundering Council coordinates binding AML enforcement across the BSP, SEC, and Insurance Commission through joint issuances (Lightspark, 2026). The SEC's Strategic Sandbox under Memorandum Circular No. 9, Series of 2024 was designed specifically to allow the SEC and other regulators to collaborate on regulatory design (Global Legal Insights, 2025). The Financial Sector Forum has a memorandum of agreement between the same agencies. What is missing is a specific output, not the mechanism to produce one.

House Bill 4792, filed by Representative Edgar Erice in September 2025, proposes a National Council on Digital Assets and Tokenized Investments precisely because Congress has recognized that the current dual-agency model produces coordination gaps (BitPinas, 2025a). A joint circular achieves the same result administratively, without waiting for legislation to pass.

2. A BSP Circular That Codifies the PHPC Audit Standard

Coins.ph's PHPC stablecoin is a genuine regulatory success story. It is 1:1 backed by cash and cash equivalents held in Philippine banks, subject to regular third-party audits, with results reported to the BSP and published for users (Kapronasia, 2025). When PHPC exited the BSP regulatory sandbox in June 2025, it did so having met performance metrics that included transparency and reserve verification (BitPinas, 2025b).

The problem is that those standards exist because of PHPC's sandbox conditions, not because a BSP circular requires every subsequent peso-backed stablecoin to meet them. The next stablecoin issuer, entering through the SEC CASP pathway or a future BSP licensing window, is not automatically bound by the same audit and disclosure requirements unless they are formally codified.

This is the stablecoin regulation gap in the Philippines right now. It is not that PHPC is unregulated. It is that PHPC's good practices have no generally applicable circular that binds every future issuer to the same standard. A short BSP circular amendment to Circular 1108 that requires quarterly independent reserve attestations, published redemption rights, and reserve composition disclosures for all peso-backed stablecoin issuers would close this gap before the market scales to a point where closing it becomes harder.

The Philippines cannot afford a de-peg event on a stablecoin used for remittances. With $38.34 billion in personal remittances in 2024 and digital payments now comprising 57.4% of retail transactions, the stakes of getting stablecoin oversight right are not abstract (Bitwage, 2025). MiCA's Title III framework for asset-referenced tokens, particularly Article 36 on reserve composition and management and Articles 46 and 47 on redemption and recovery planning, offers a direct drafting template. PHPC has already proven the standard is operationally achievable in the Philippine context. The BSP just needs to make it universal.

3. A Standalone BIR Revenue Regulation on Crypto

The Philippines has no standalone cryptocurrency tax regulation. Crypto is taxable under general principles in the National Internal Revenue Code, but what that means in practice depends on which BIR officer a taxpayer encounters. The varied perspectives among BIR officers on crypto taxation are well documented (AboLaw Firm, 2024), and a practitioner trying to report staking rewards, P2E income, or a crypto-to-crypto swap correctly has no authoritative BIR guidance to follow.

This ambiguity does not protect anyone. It produces inconsistent audit outcomes for taxpayers who want to comply and makes enforcement nearly impossible for the BIR. A P2E scholar who earned SLP income in 2022 and wanted to declare it had no published framework for peso valuation, no guidance on whether scholarship income was employment or business income, and no clarity on whether converting SLP to GCash constituted a taxable disposal.

The CASP Rules change what is possible here. For the first time, there is a registered-entity base of licensed Philippine crypto platforms. The BIR now has identifiable intermediaries through which it can collect transaction data and require reporting, exactly as stockbrokers currently issue annual gain-and-loss summaries under the existing securities framework. A BIR Revenue Regulation that specifies how gains on crypto-to-fiat disposals are calculated, how staking and yield income is valued and when it is recognized, how P2E earnings are classified, and what records CASPs must generate for users would give taxpayers clear rules and give the BIR an enforceable compliance base. Both sides benefit from clarity. The CASP Rules have made that clarity achievable in a way it was not before May 2025.

4. A Targeted SEC Circular on P2E and GameFi Consumer Protection

The CASP Rules define regulated entities as exchanges, custodians, brokers, and trading platforms. A P2E game platform that issues in-game tokens, runs a scholarship economy at scale, and functions as a primary income source for rural Filipino households does not fit that definition cleanly (Global Legal Insights, 2025). As documented in Part 2, when the Axie collapse came, there was no regulatory mechanism requiring Sky Mavis to disclose the structural mechanics of its token economy, notify users before cutting earning rates, or maintain reserves for redemption demand. None of those protections exist today for any equivalent platform.

House Bill 4792 calls for responsible cryptocurrency adoption with safeguards and mentions DeFi regulation, but P2E and GameFi are not specifically named (CoinGeek, 2025). The legislative gap mirrors the regulatory one.

A SEC circular, rather than new legislation, is the right instrument here. It does not need to be long. It needs to require that any platform issuing tokens with real monetary value, marketed to Philippine users, discloses how those tokens are generated and what affects their value; give users 30 days' notice before material changes to token earning mechanics; register scholarship structures above a defined scale; and maintain liquid reserves for token redemption.

None of these requirements are novel. They are adaptations of principles already embedded in the CASP Rules, applied to a use case the Philippines understands better than any other regulatory body in the world. No other jurisdiction has built a GameFi consumer protection framework. The Philippines has the documented harm record and the institutional knowledge to do it first. That is not a burden. It is an opportunity to set a standard that the global blockchain gaming industry will eventually need to follow.

5. A Public Record Obligation for Regulatory Consultations

The CASP Rules public consultation closed January 18, 2025. There is no published record of which comments were received, which were incorporated into the final rules, and which were rejected and why. This is common practice in Philippine regulatory drafting, but it has a real cost: it makes the consultation process a formality rather than a genuine input mechanism, and it produces regulations that sometimes miss operationally important details that practitioners could have flagged.

The fix is straightforward. The SEC and BSP should commit to publishing, within 60 days of a regulation taking effect, a summary of submissions received during the public consultation and a written explanation of how they were addressed. This is not an industry veto. It is a transparency standard. Regulators who have to explain in writing why they accepted or rejected specific feedback write better regulations and build more trust with the industry they are governing.

House Bill 4792 makes this point at the legislative level, explicitly mandating that the proposed NCDATI include representation from citizens, OFWs, and civil society, with its explanatory note stating that "policies will no longer be crafted behind closed doors" (BitPinas, 2025a). The same principle applies to SEC and BSP rulemaking. Industry and civil society organizations already participate in DICT blockchain consultations and policy dialogues. Formalizing that participation in SEC and BSP drafting processes through recognized industry representation, with a published response obligation, is a natural extension of engagement that already happens informally. The difference between informal and formal is a public record and an accountability mechanism. Those two things change what regulators hear and how seriously they have to account for it.

The Argument for Acting Now

The Philippines has built the foundation. BSP Circular 1108, the CASP Rules, the FATF exit, and BSP/NTC enforcement against unlicensed platforms are real achievements at a scale that few ASEAN jurisdictions have matched. The country's 9th-place adoption ranking reflects a market that is large, active, and structurally under-served by the regulatory system around it.

The five proposals above do not add complexity to that system. They reduce it, by replacing ambiguity with clear answers on classification, stablecoin standards, taxation, GameFi protections, and practitioner engagement. Each one is achievable through existing agency authority. None of them require waiting.

The declining Chainalysis ranking is not inevitable. It reflects a gap between adoption and institutional maturity that regulation can close. Closing it is not just a consumer protection issue. It is the condition under which the Philippines becomes a jurisdiction where serious builders, institutional investors, and international partners choose to operate rather than one they work around.

References