The consultation on the FINIG revision has concluded.

With the expiry of the consultation period on February 6, 2026, the formal consultation phase for the FINIG revision has concluded. The feedback from business, industry, politics, and supervision paints a clear picture and simultaneously reveals a fundamental conflict of objectives.

Almost all stakeholders share the same principles: regulation should create legal certainty, address risks, and strengthen Switzerland's financial center. And yet, there is a real danger that the exact opposite will occur. Not
because of the idea of regulation, but because of its implementation.

The statements can be broadly summarized as follows:

• The business community warns against overregulation, lengthy licensing procedures, and
  a Swiss finish.
• The crypto industry demands tailor-made, technologically informed rules instead of
  banking logic.
• Politics and administration prioritize integrity, reputation, and
  anti-money laundering efforts.
• Supervision consistently focuses on control, risk minimization, and prudence.

All these perspectives are legitimate. All address real risks. From our point of view, the problem arises where these perspectives are not operationalized.

The word proportionality appears in almost every statement. In practice, however, what is specifically meant by it often remains unclear.

Proportionality is not decided:

• in the legal text,
• in the dispatch,
• or in general supervisory principles.

It is decided in very specific questions:

• Which governance structures are necessary for which risk profile?
• Which functions must be anchored internally and which can be organized pragmatically?
• How is differentiation made between business models, activities, and systemic relevance?

Without clear answers, blanket requirements emerge. And blanket requirements, unfortunately, too often lead to overregulation.

In the current discussion, from velaw's perspective, a central misunderstanding is that licensing is seen as an endpoint.

But as always, in practice, this is merely the beginning. The real challenges begin:

• in ongoing operations,
• in the further development of the business model,
• in audits, adjustments, and international expansion.

If licensing requirements are not designed with a view to subsequent operation, structures emerge that are:

• expensive,
• bring little added value,
• and are difficult to scale.

This weakens not only individual institutions but the entire location.

Crypto and DLT-based business models are not a variant of classic financial products. Custody, wallet structures, token flows, or stablecoin mechanics follow their own technical logic.

Regulation that does not understand these logics inevitably produces:

• over-engineering,
• wrong incentives,
• and more risks instead of fewer.

Technological neutrality must not be confused with technological ignorance. Anyone who wants to address risks must understand the technology that generates them.

The interoperability with international regimes like MiCA (Markets in Crypto-Assets) is often invoked. However, what is crucial is not political will, but the concrete design.

International competitiveness is decided in:

• definitions,
• processes,
• supervisory practice,
• and the duration and predictability of licensing procedures.

A regulatory framework can be formally compatible and yet de facto deter.