Thailand’s stablecoin proposal could lock tokens to a single owner
Thailand’s SEC proposes a same‑owner rule for stablecoin transfers on licensed platforms, limiting peer‑to‑peer moves and capping daily volume.
According to CryptoSlate, Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has floated a draft rule that would require stablecoin deposits and withdrawals on licensed platforms to come from, and go to, the same verified owner. The move targets tokens such as USDT and would take effect only if the consultation turns into law.
What happened
The SEC’s September 3 consultation principles spell out a “same‑owner” test. A customer could deposit a stablecoin only if the sending wallet is verified as theirs, and any withdrawal must land in a wallet also verified as theirs. The draft also caps inbound and outbound transfers at 5 million baht per day, per person, per operator, unless the trade qualifies for an exemption – for example, transfers between two customers of the same operator that comply with the Travel Rule, or moves involving certain market‑making entities.
The proposal is limited to transactions that pass through SEC‑supervised digital‑asset operators. Pure peer‑to‑peer (P2P) transfers that happen entirely off‑platform would remain outside its reach. The public consultation opened on September 11 and closes on September 25, 2026; no effective date has been announced.
Why it works that way
The SEC says it acted after seeing a surge in stablecoin volume, especially USDT, and spotting patterns it linked to money‑laundering, cybercrime, and circumvention of international money‑transfer rules. By forcing a verified‑owner link at the platform’s edge, the regulator hopes to keep a clear audit trail of who controls each token batch.
In practice, a licensed operator would need to collect identity documents for every wallet a user links to their account, then match that wallet’s public address to the user’s profile. When a user tries to receive a transfer from an external address, the system would reject it unless that address is already on file as the user’s own. The same check runs on withdrawal: the destination address must be one the user previously registered.
The rule sits alongside Thailand’s upcoming Travel Rule, which obliges operators to gather and share counter‑party information for transfers above a certain size. The Travel Rule focuses on who is sending and receiving, while the same‑owner test adds a layer that blocks transfers to third‑party wallets entirely when they cross the platform boundary. Together, they aim to prevent “layer‑jumping” – moving funds through a regulated exchange to hide the original source.
What changes because of it
If adopted, everyday token flows will look different for Thai users of licensed platforms. Sending USDT to a friend who holds a wallet on a different exchange, or receiving a payment from a family member who uses another service, would be impossible through the regulated gateway. Users would have to rely on off‑platform P2P methods, such as direct wallet‑to‑wallet transfers, to move tokens between people.
The cap of 5 million baht (about $140,000) per day per operator also introduces a hard ceiling on high‑value commerce that currently runs through exchanges. While exemptions exist for transfers that satisfy the Travel Rule, the draft does not clarify whether those waivers also lift the same‑owner requirement. That ambiguity could push businesses toward unregulated channels to preserve flexibility.
For the industry, the rule could reduce the attractiveness of Thai‑based exchanges for services that depend on quick peer‑to‑peer settlement, such as remittances or decentralized finance (DeFi) gateways that still need a fiat‑on‑ramp. Market makers and institutional participants that qualify for exemptions may continue unhindered, but smaller traders could find their options narrowed.
From a consumer perspective, the restriction may improve traceability and satisfy AML (anti‑money‑laundering) watchdogs, but it also adds friction for legitimate use cases. Users who value privacy or who simply want to pay a friend without involving a third‑party exchange will face an extra step: move the stablecoin off‑platform first, then complete the P2P transfer.
What to watch next is whether the SEC clarifies the interaction between the same‑owner test and the Travel Rule exemption list, and whether any technical solutions—such as on‑ramp providers that can act as custodial bridges— emerge to soften the impact. Until the rule is finalized, platforms are likely to keep the status quo, but the consultation itself signals a regulatory tone that may influence future proposals in the region.
