Thailand SEC Proposes Ban on Stablecoin Transfers to Other Wallets
According to Cryptoslate, the Thailand Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has proposed a new regulation draft for stablecoins, which aims to impose significant restrictions on the deposit and withdrawal methods of stablecoins on licensed crypto platforms.
According to the draft, licensed crypto platforms will only allow customers to deposit stablecoins from their verified accounts or wallets, or withdraw stablecoins to their verified accounts or wallets, explicitly prohibiting users from transferring stablecoins to others' wallets through the platform.
The draft also sets a limit, stipulating that each user can have a maximum stablecoin inflow and outflow of 5 million Thai Baht per day on each platform, equivalent to approximately $150,000 at current exchange rates, with inflow and outflow directions calculated separately.
This proposal is currently in the public consultation phase, with the deadline for feedback set for September 25. The draft has not yet officially come into effect, and subsequent terms may still be adjusted.
If the draft is ultimately implemented, the stablecoin transfer function on licensed crypto platforms will be restricted to "intra-account deposits and withdrawals," effectively cutting off users' ability to directly transfer stablecoins to third-party wallets via licensed platforms. This will significantly weaken the practicality of stablecoins as payment and transfer tools within licensed channels, potentially prompting some users with peer-to-peer transfer needs to turn to unregulated offshore platforms or direct on-chain transfer methods, while also reducing transaction volume and fee income for licensed platforms related to stablecoin business.
Source: Public Information
ABAB AI Insight
The Thailand SEC has been tightening its regulatory approach towards the crypto industry in recent years—previously requiring licensed exchanges to implement strict user identity verification (KYC) and anti-money laundering checks, and issuing multiple warnings about the legal risks of unlicensed offshore exchanges operating in Thailand. This new stablecoin regulation continues its consistent approach of "real-name account penetration regulation."
From a funding pathway perspective, restricting stablecoins to only be deposited and withdrawn between verified accounts effectively cuts off the channels for using stablecoins for peer-to-peer payments, over-the-counter transaction settlements, or circumventing anti-money laundering checks within licensed platforms. This forces related fund flows to either remain within the regulated real-name account system or shift to unregulated on-chain or offshore channels, indicating that regulators are attempting to bring the flow of stablecoins entirely into a traceable and auditable compliance framework.
This is similar to the "layered licensing + real-name penetration" regulatory approach taken by Asian financial centers like Hong Kong and Singapore in recent years towards stablecoins and virtual asset service providers—multiple Asian jurisdictions tend to encourage licensed institutions to operate in compliance while strictly limiting the space for anonymous fund flows. Thailand's new regulation advances the region's stablecoin regulation from "whether to allow licensed trading" to "how to restrict the methods of fund flow within licensed channels," a more granular stage.
Essentially, this represents a regulatory change—by limiting stablecoins to only be deposited and withdrawn between verified accounts and setting daily limits, regulators are artificially creating a friction cost between licensed compliance channels and open on-chain transfers. The mechanism is that the higher the compliance thresholds and restrictions for fund transfers within licensed channels, the more it will push funds with transfer needs towards offshore or on-chain paths with weaker regulatory coverage, resulting in a coexistence of tightened regulation and fund outflow.
ABAB News · Cognitive Laws
- Limits do not restrict funds; they restrict the visibility of funds.
- The more penetrating the regulation of accounts, the more funds will circumvent to on-chain.
- The narrower the compliance channels, the wider the gray channels.