Hong Kong Stablecoins: Why End-March 2026 Came and Went Without a Licence

Hong Kong Stablecoins: Why End-March 2026 Came and Went Without a Licence

Hong Kong's Stablecoins Ordinance came into force on 1 August 2025 under the supervision of the Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA), establishing what was hailed at the time as one of the world's first comprehensive regulatory frameworks for stablecoin issuance. The regime moved quickly from legislative framework to operational reality. Yet as of April 2026—nearly nine months after the framework became effective—not a single stablecoin licence has been granted, despite market expectations that the first approvals would materialise by end of Q1 2026. This article examines the causes of the delay, what it signals about the HKMA's supervisory approach, and how prospective issuers should calibrate their expectations and strategy.

The Framework: Architecture and Early Signals

The Stablecoins Ordinance establishes a licensing regime for stablecoin issuers operating in Hong Kong. The regime applies to any digital token where the economic purpose is to maintain a stable value by reference to one or more specified assets (typically fiat currency), and which is intended to be used as a medium of exchange or store of value. The licensing authority is the HKMA.

The regime's key design features are well-known to market participants. First, the HKMA imposes a 100% HQLA (High Quality Liquid Assets) reserve requirement—issuers must hold qualifying liquid assets equal to 100% of the stablecoin's outstanding supply at all times. This is more stringent than many international comparators and reflects the HKMA's conservative supervisory posture. Qualifying assets include Hong Kong dollar-denominated bank deposits held in banks licensed by the HKMA, Hong Kong government bonds, and specified other securities of minimal credit risk. Second, reserves must be held in segregated accounts, clearly separated from the issuer's operational assets. Third, issuers must be incorporated in Hong Kong or have substantive operations in Hong Kong. Fourth, the HKMA introduced a structured redemption obligation—holders are entitled to redeem their stablecoins at par (1:1) in Hong Kong dollars on demand, making the economic undertaking genuinely backed by liquid assets.

The legislative journey was accelerated. The HKMA published consultation documents in late 2024, conducted a public consultation period of approximately 60 days, and moved to enactment with minimal amendments. This speed signalled the Government's and the HKMA's commitment to positioning Hong Kong as a leading jurisdiction for regulated stablecoins. At the time of the Ordinance's commencement on 1 August 2025, multiple projects signalled they were in advanced preparatory stages. Market commentary routinely projected that the first approvals would emerge in Q4 2025 or Q1 2026.

The Sandbox Foundation: Early Engagement and Expectations

The HKMA's Stablecoin Sandbox, which began operations in 2023, played a foundational role in establishing participant expectations. The Sandbox admitted a limited number of applications from blue-chip applicants, including Jingdong Coinlink Technology (an entity engaged in RMB stablecoin infrastructure) and Standard Chartered Bank (Hong Kong) (exploring HKD stablecoin mechanics). These participants engaged directly with HKMA supervisors over an 18-month period, testing operational procedures, custody arrangements, and governance frameworks. Sandbox participants were granted considerable transparency into the HKMA's supervisory concerns and technical preferences.

When the Ordinance entered force, the market's implicit assumption was that Sandbox participants were substantially "pre-approved" and would transition rapidly to licensed status. Indeed, some communications from the HKMA suggested that the Sandbox process would accelerate the transition to full licensing. As of April 2026, not even the Sandbox participants have been formally licensed, though the HKMA has not publicly disclosed whether these entities have submitted formal applications under the Ordinance or remain in discussions with supervisors.

Analysing the Delay: Structural Causes

While the HKMA has not published a detailed explanation for the absence of approvals to date, several structural factors plausibly account for the delay. These factors reflect the genuine complexity of the regime and the HKMA's well-established supervisory methodology.

Reserve Composition and Custody Verification. The 100% HQLA requirement, while conceptually simple, creates significant operational verification burdens for the HKMA. The regulator must satisfy itself that qualifying reserves are genuinely held, are held in segregated accounts, and cannot be commingled with issuer operational assets or swept into higher-yielding instruments. For any material stablecoin issuance (HKD 100 million or more), this verification process involves:

• Reviewing and stress-testing the issuer's treasury management policies and segregation mechanisms;
• On-site examination of the custody arrangements, including site visits to banks and custodians holding reserves;
• Reviewing all custodial agreements, deposit confirmations, and tri-partite arrangements between issuer, custodian, and HKMA;
• Establishing automated or periodic reporting procedures to verify ongoing reserve adequacy;
• Testing disaster recovery and business continuity procedures for reserve accounts.

For a single application of material size, this process is resource-intensive. Multiplied across several simultaneous applications, the HKMA's supervisory capacity is materially constrained. The HKMA has not published details of its resourcing for the Stablecoins Ordinance, but it is reasonable to assume that the Authority has committed fewer supervisory resources to the regime than to banking supervision.

Governance, Substance Requirements, and Local Presence. The Ordinance explicitly requires that issuers be incorporated in Hong Kong or have "substantive operations" in Hong Kong. This phrase is not defined in the statutory instrument, and the HKMA's interpretation has become a significant point of friction in supervisory engagement. The Authority has signalled, through informal supervisory guidance, that it expects issuers to have:

• A Hong Kong-incorporated entity as the applicant (not a foreign subsidiary of an offshore parent);
• A board of directors with sufficient Hong Kong presence and judgment;
• Material operational and management functions actually performed in Hong Kong (not merely a Hong Kong-registered mailbox);
• Financial and regulatory compliance staff employed in Hong Kong;
• Governance arrangements such that material decisions (e.g., reserve composition changes, redemption policy modifications) are made by Hong Kong-resident or Hong Kong-incorporated decision-makers.

This interpretation exceeds the literal statutory language and reflects the HKMA's historical preference for "substance over form" in regulatory compliance. For offshore or multi-jurisdictional sponsors, establishing genuine Hong Kong substance requires material restructuring—relocation of personnel, establishment of Hong Kong governance structures, or appointment of Hong Kong-resident officers. This restructuring is operationally difficult and time-consuming, particularly where the sponsor has limited prior Hong Kong presence. Several market participants have indicated informally that they have paused applications to undertake such restructuring.

Interaction with the VASP Regime and Multi-Regulator Coordination. Stablecoins issued or distributed in Hong Kong that are capable of being held by retail investors or used in peer-to-peer transactions may fall within the definition of "virtual assets" under Hong Kong's Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorist Financing Ordinance (Cap. 615, as amended in 2023). If a stablecoin is distributed through a virtual asset service provider (VASP), the VASP must be licensed by the SFC under the Securities and Futures Ordinance, not the HKMA. This creates a two-layer licensing requirement: HKMA licence for the issuer, and SFC licence for the distributor.

For a stablecoin intended primarily for institutional settlement (wholesale use), this dual-licensing issue may be inapplicable. However, for any HKD-denominated stablecoin intended for broader market use (particularly if used as a settlement asset on a distributed ledger), the SFC's requirements must be satisfied in parallel with the HKMA's. The SFC has not published bespoke guidance on stablecoin distribution, leaving applicants to navigate existing Type 1 (dealing in securities) and Type 4 (advising on securities) licensing requirements by analogy. This ambiguity has lengthened supervisory dialogue with some applicants.

Technical and Operational Standards—The Absence of Published Guidance. The HKMA has not published detailed technical standards for stablecoin issuance (e.g., the specification of what constitutes "segregated accounts," the acceptable custody arrangements, or the automation standards for redemption mechanisms). The Ordinance provides the broad framework; the HKMA's supervisory practice provides the detailed standards. This creates a "moving target" for applicants: they must engage directly with the HKMA to understand operational expectations, and those expectations may evolve as the Authority gains experience with applications.

What the Delay Signals About Supervisory Approach

The absence of approvals after nine months is not, of itself, a negative signal about the regime's viability or the HKMA's ultimate willingness to license compliant operators. The HKMA's supervisory culture, forged through decades of banking and securities oversight, prioritises prudential soundness over speed. The Authority is known to conduct multi-year supervisory dialogues with banking applicants and to require extensive remediation where compliance gaps are identified. Applied to stablecoins, this approach means the HKMA will take time to satisfy itself that the regime's key safeguards—100% reserve backing, genuine segregation, and sound governance—are genuinely embedded in each applicant's operational infrastructure.

What the delay does signal is that the HKMA's expectations exceed what some applicants anticipated. The requirements for substantive Hong Kong presence, for example, go beyond the statutory language and reflect supervisory policy preferences that were not fully articulated in the pre-commencement consultation period. This creates potential friction for applicants that have optimised their structures for other jurisdictions' requirements.

Implications for the Market: First-Mover Advantage and Competitive Positioning

Hong Kong faces material competitive pressure from other jurisdictions' stablecoin regimes. Singapore's Monetary Authority published its regulatory approach for stablecoins in 2023 and has begun issuing licenses under its payments framework. The European Union's MiCA regulation came into force in December 2023, and several stablecoin issuers have obtained EU authorisation. The United Arab Emirates has licensed stablecoins under its VARA (Virtual Assets Regulatory Authority) framework since 2022. Each of these regimes is ahead of Hong Kong in terms of licensed issuers operational in the market.

The absence of any Hong Kong-licensed stablecoin as of April 2026 risks ceding "first-mover" credibility to these competing regimes. However, there is a countervailing consideration: Hong Kong's regime is substantively more robust in its reserve requirements and par redemption obligations than most international comparators. A HKD stablecoin issued under the HKMA regime will carry greater credibility with institutional users precisely because its reserve backing is verified by a respected regulator. Once the first approvals are granted, the licensed stablecoins will enjoy significant competitive advantage over unregulated or loosely regulated stablecoins.

The competitive dynamics are thus complex. Early licensees from other jurisdictions have captured first-mover marketing advantage. But Hong Kong-licensed stablecoins will ultimately offer the strongest regulatory imprimatur. The delay is costly in terms of time-to-market, but not fatal to Hong Kong's long-term positioning.

Guidance for Prospective Issuers

For issuers actively pursuing Hong Kong stablecoin licences, the following considerations emerge from the experience to date:

Early and Continuous Supervisory Engagement. The HKMA does not publish detailed technical standards in writing; rather, these standards emerge through supervisory dialogue. Early engagement with the Authority—indeed, even a preliminary meeting to discuss the applicant's structure before formal application—can identify potential obstacles and clarify expectations. Applicants should initiate contact with the HKMA's Banking Policy Department or the relevant supervisory team.

Substantive Hong Kong Presence. Prospective applicants should not rely on technical Hong Kong incorporation if they lack genuine operational substance in Hong Kong. Establishing Hong Kong substance requires sustained commitment: hiring Hong Kong-resident compliance and operational staff, appointing Hong Kong-resident board members or officers with real decision-making authority, and embedding Hong Kong operations in the issuer's governance structure. This is not a cosmetic exercise that can be remedied late in the supervisory process.

Reserve Management Infrastructure. The most critical operational element is the reserve custody arrangement. Applicants should engage Hong Kong-licensed banks early to structure reserve accounts that satisfy the segregation requirement. This typically involves a tri-partite arrangement: issuer, HKMA-licensed custodian bank, and HKMA as overseer. The mechanics of top-up deposits, redemption payments, and automated reconciliation should be operationally tested before formal application.

Documentation Discipline. Supervisory review of governance documents, constitutional documents, reserve management policies, and custody agreements will be detailed and searching. Applicants should treat these documents as the governing standard, not as boilerplate. Each provision should be internally consistent, operationally feasible, and aligned with supervisory expectations.

Realistic Timeline Expectations. Applicants should plan for a supervisory process of 12–18 months from initial engagement to licence grant, not the 9-month cycle that was anticipated pre-commencement. This timeline reflects the genuine operational complexity and the HKMA's supervisory rigour. Applicants should calibrate their business planning and funding assumptions accordingly.

How Alan Wong LLP Can Help

Learn about our fintech and digital assets practice

This article is for general information and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. Laws and regulatory requirements are subject to change. You should seek independent legal advice in relation to your specific circumstances before taking any action or relying on any information in this article.