Has the crypto spring arrived in the Cayman Islands?

Published: 13 May 2019
Type: Insight

This article was first published in LegalTech News

The recent “Crypto Winter” has seen a shift of investor focus away from crowdfunded platforms offering utility tokens, towards security tokens which seek to provide greater value stability and more predictable investment returns. With flexible and commercially-minded legislation, political stability, an internationally recognized securities regulatory regime, and a special economic zone that has proved attractive to technology entrepreneurs, the Cayman Islands has already established itself as a leading offshore technology hub and is well placed to take advantage of this shift to securitizing and digitalizing common assets as the “Crypto Spring” arrives.


Cayman’s Flexibility 

Utility tokens, in their purest form, provide a means of access to a technology platform or service. Utility tokens derive their value from the demand for that access, rather than from the value of any underlying asset or share in the profits of the venture.

In contrast, the value of a security token is derived from the underlying asset. The nature of that asset is limited only to its ability to be tied to a token, but could include equity, fractional entitlements to a pool of investments, profit shares, bonds and other debts, real estate, commodities and even collectible assets such as art or fine wines. By attributing a digital token to an otherwise illiquid asset, the token can give the asset a tradable quality, an irrefutable record of transfer, the possibility of rapid and 24-hour transaction settlement and the removal of costly middlemen.

Unlike other offshore jurisdictions, the Cayman Islands has not yet expressed an interest in implementing an overarching framework to govern digital assets. Instead, the primary legislation governing securities in Cayman is the Securities and Investment Business Law (SIBL). In this fast-moving sector where the technology is always running ahead of the law, this “watch-and-wait” approach helps the Cayman Islands adapt quickly.

SIBL sets out an exhaustive list of financial instruments that constitute “securities” and requires those who carry on, or hold themselves out as carrying on, a “securities investment business” to obtain a licence from the Cayman Islands Monetary Authority (CIMA) subject to certain safe harbors. While every token is different and requires a full regulatory review, pure utility tokens would not, generally, be deemed to be securities and therefore would not trigger licensing requirements under SIBL. Consequently, issuers, dealers and custodians of pure utility tokens do not generally require licensing in Cayman.

Conversely, most security tokens would be expected to fall within SIBL’s definition of securities. However, as a result of SIBL’s more prescriptive approach to defining securities, certain tokens deemed generally as security tokens may, in fact, not fall within SIBL’s ambit. Moreover, whilst tokenized equities, debt and—where interpreted as a debt to holders—profit shares would be securities under SIBL, their issuers would likely benefit from the safe harbors that SIBL provides thereby avoiding the need to be licensed under SIBL.

Tokenized Securities

As the bear market for ICOs continues, many digital asset businesses have reverted to traditional debt and equity raises. Cayman’s company legislation and the wide choice of corporate vehicles available allows for a great deal of commercial flexibility and lends itself well to tokenized equity and debt issuances. Where Cayman issuers are looking to attract a wide range of investors through equity, we anticipate the tokenization of depository receipts, rather than the equity securities themselves. In such cases, the issuer would issue the equity securities to a licensed depository which in turn would issue tokenized depository receipts, representing those equity securities, to investors. The depository will hold the underlying equity securities on trust for token holders on the terms set out in the depository agreements.

For smaller enterprises looking to attract fewer investors, direct tokenisation of equity interests is possible. Cayman’s Companies Law provides flexibility for Cayman companies to determine the manner for passing shareholder resolutions and the process for transferring their equity securities, both of which can be conducted electronically, with the instruments of transfer completed digitally. Under Cayman law, legal title to a share is transferred when the name of the transferee is entered into the company’s register of members. For a Cayman-exempted company that register may be held electronically, provided the company can produce legible evidence of its contents and, consequently, could be held encrypted on a private blockchain and accessed when required.

Smart contracts built into the tokens can govern those transfers once any pre-set conditions have been satisfied and also ensure that the register of members is updated simultaneously with any transfer. Regulatory concerns over AML, KYC and jurisdictional restrictions can be alleviated in the same way. Digital verification of identities, the receipt of electronic copies of documents instead of traditional “wet ink” paper-based processes and the use of third party providers will, over time, provide even greater flexibility in satisfying increasingly robust AML compliance obligations.

Tokenized Funds

The Cayman Islands has also seen increased interest in the formation of tokenized funds, where an investor’s interest is represented by a cryptographic token, as opposed to shares or other interests or units offered to investors in a more traditional fund structure.

The primary piece of legislation in the Cayman Islands relating to open-ended investment funds is the Mutual Funds Law. A “mutual fund” is defined as a common investment vehicle which issues equity interests (such as tokens in a tokenized fund structure) that allows participation amongst a pool of investors in the profits or gains of such vehicle’s investments and which is redeemable at the option of the investor.

A tokenized fund will typically appoint a board (depending on the legal structure of the tokenized fund), an investment manager, an administrator, a custodian and legal advisers. In addition, a tokenized fund is likely to appoint a smart contract auditor and/or a third party KYC service provider to assist with the KYC process for subscribers. All registered mutual funds must have their audited financial statements prepared or signed off by an approved Cayman Islands auditor and filed with CIMA within six months of their financial year end.

Depending on the redemption rights, token holders may redeem their tokens for cash and/or payments in-kind (or a combination thereof) or transfer their tokens with the written consent of the board. The attraction for holders of these tokens is that they also have the potential to offer liquidity through an exchange.

Notwithstanding their increasing popularity, liquidity remains elusive for security tokens. Few security token exchanges have commenced operations and those that have remain in their infancy.

The tokenization of assets represents the next shift in the blockchain journey. As this latest fund raising model develops and grows in popularity, Cayman’s flexible corporate and regulatory regimes will ensure that Cayman stays at the forefront of this revolution and continue to provide a welcome home for businesses looking to launch the next generation of digital assets.

Share
More publications
The Exception To The Rule: Stricter Test Applies Where Granting An Interlocutory Injunction Would Shut Out Trial
28 Apr 2026

The Interplay Between Supervision Applications and Winding Up on the Just and Equitable Ground: Re Atlas Capital Markets LLC

In its recent judgment in Re Atlas Capital Markets LLC [2026] CIGC (FSD) 19, the Grand Court considered itself bound to make a supervision order pursuant to s.131(b) of the Companies Act, notwithstanding that the company was the subject of a pending just and equitable winding up (J&E) petition when its voluntary liquidation was commenced; and rejected an attack on the joint voluntary liquidators’ (JVLs) independence, which was principally based on a misreading of the JVLs’ evidence and lacked any objective foundation. The authors, who successfully represented the JVLs in obtaining the supervision order, discuss this important judgment further below – which is believed to be the first decision on the interplay between supervision applications and J&E proceedings under the Companies Act – and offer their views on the guidance that shareholders petitioning on the just and equitable ground may derive from it in future cases.  The challenge to the JVLs’ independence was rejected on the well-established principles which Doyle J discussed in Re Global Fidelity Bank [2021] 2 CILR 361, and is not discussed in further detail below.

Appleby-Website-Insurance-and-Reinsurance
23 Apr 2026

ReConnect 2026: Practical takeaways for Reinsurers, Cedants and Investors doing business in the Cayman Islands

The Cayman International Reinsurance Commercial Association (CIRCA) held its annual conference, [Re]Connect, last week at the Ritz-Carlton, Grand Cayman. This year’s [Re]Connect has once again demonstrated Cayman’s growing influence in global reinsurance and the strength of the jurisdiction’s regulatory, professional and commercial ecosystem. The event brought together 675 registered delegates, including reinsurers, cedants, major US law firms, audit firms, tax practices, asset managers, overseas regulators, industry leaders and rating agencies – as well as Appleby Cayman’s [Re]Insurance Team, with Miriam Smyth, Regulatory Counsel, speaking on a panel of experts on structuring, licensing and operating a Cayman insurer.

The Exception To The Rule: Stricter Test Applies Where Granting An Interlocutory Injunction Would Shut Out Trial
23 Apr 2026

FamilyMart and Beyond: The Continuing Influence of the Privy Council’s Landmark Decision on Shareholder Litigation

The Privy Council's decision in FamilyMart China Holding Co Ltd v Ting Chuan (Cayman Islands) Holding Corp [2023] UKPC 33 is a landmark ruling that distinguishes the arbitrability of underlying shareholder disputes from the court's exclusive jurisdiction over just and equitable winding-up of a Cayman company.

Appleby-Website-Private-Client-and-Trusts-Practice
22 Apr 2026

Regulation, Regulation, Regulation

The article discusses updates to global trust guidance and regulation, as well as beneficial ownership and the regulatory burden on trustees that comes with increased transparency.

Appleby-Website-Corporate-Practice
22 Apr 2026

Prospects of Asian Companies in U.S. Listings in 2026

Nasdaq introduced a series of rule changes in 2025 to raise minimum requirements for public float and offering size for certain new listings.

Website-Code-Cayman
20 Apr 2026

Avoiding The Nuclear Option: Buyout Orders In Just And Equitable Winding Up Proceedings

With the Cayman Islands being a preferred jurisdiction for the incorporation of investment vehicles, inevitably cases will arise where non-controlling shareholders complain that they are being unfairly prejudiced by conduct of those in control, and necessarily pursue those complaints by way of proceedings to wind up the subject company on the just and equitable ground. Where such complaints are well-founded, the outcome will often be an order putting the subject company into official liquidation.  But the Cayman courts also have the jurisdiction in such cases to make a range of other orders as alternatives to taking that nuclear option, and are indeed obliged to consider whether any of those alternative orders would provide a more appropriate solution to the complaints.[1] The Grand Court was recently required to conduct that analysis in the case of Re Position Mobile Ltd SEZC.[2]  The petitioning shareholder in that case had satisfied the Court that it would be just and equitable to wind up the company – since it had justifiably lost confidence in the probity of those in control, due to their serious and sustained misconduct and mismanagement – but positively sought a buyout order[3] as an alternative to a winding up.  The Court thus proceeded to consider whether the buyout order, or any other alternative order, would be more appropriate than ordering a winding up, and concluded that a buyout order was the fairest and most appropriate form of relief in the circumstances of that case. The authors will discuss the guidance which the Position Mobile case provides in that regard below, which should be considered together with the guidance provided by Re Madera Technology Fund (CI) Ltd,[4] particularly in respect of the approach that the Cayman courts can be expected to take when setting the appropriate valuation date for a buyout order, with a view to ensuring that the valuation is fair to each side.[5] [1] See Re Virginia Solution SPC Ltd (unrep. 28 July 2023, CICA) at [61]. [2] [2026] CIGC (FSD) 10 [3] Requiring the respondent shareholders to purchase its shares at a fair price. [4] (unrep. 21 Aug. 2024, Richards J). [5] For further detail, see the authors’ article on the Madera Technology case at https://www.applebyglobal.com/publications/no-looking-back-investor-held-to-buyout-at-current-value-of-shares/.

The Exception To The Rule: Stricter Test Applies Where Granting An Interlocutory Injunction Would Shut Out Trial
7 Apr 2026

No Claim, No Injunction: What Does a Limited Partner Actually Own?

What equitable proprietary interest, if any, does a limited partner hold in the assets of a Cayman Islands exempted limited partnership, and is that interest is sufficient to ground a proprietary injunction? These questions lie at the heart of Parker J’s recent judgment in the matter of Charitable DAF HoldCo, Ltd (in Official Liquidation), in which the Grand Court refused proprietary injunctive relief sought by joint official liquidators against former directors and associated entities. The judgment holds that the Company, as a limited partner in a Cayman ELP, had no equitable proprietary interest in the Fund’s underlying assets of the quality required to found the relief sought. While the court did not exclude the possibility of an LP having proprietary rights in an ELP’s assets, it held that on the particular facts of the case such rights were excluded.

Appleby-Website-Cayman2
30 Mar 2026

The Regulation of Cayman Islands Tokenised Funds – Clear Rules Now in Place

On 5 March 2026 the Virtual Asset (Service Providers) (Amendment Bill), 2026, the Mutual Funds (Amendment) Bill, 2026 and the Private Funds (Amendment) Bill, 2026 were passed by the Parliament of the Cayman Islands with unanimous support, providing welcome clarity that Cayman Islands tokenised funds are regulated within Cayman’s existing Mutual Funds Act (MFA) and Private Funds Act (PFA) framework and do not fall within the scope of the Virtual Asset (Service Providers) Act (VASPA).

Appleby-Website-Regulatory-Practice
19 Mar 2026

Key Regulatory Requirements of SIBA Registered Persons in the Cayman Islands

Registered Persons under the Securities Investment Business Act (Revised) (SIBA) attract regulatory requirements including annual reporting requirements with key filing deadlines falling in January and, typically, December each year. The Cayman Islands Monetary Authority (CIMA)’s recently issued General Industry Notice to the effect that all SIBA Registered Persons will be additionally required to submit a Prudential Information Survey for the 2025 calendar year (by 31 March 2026) has signaled CIMA's continued focus on enhancing the resilience, transparency and prudential soundness of the securities investment business (SIB) sector in the Cayman Islands. Accordingly, this briefing reviews some of the other key regulatory and reporting obligations that attach to Registered Persons under SIBA, CIMA’s associated Rules and Statements of Guidance (SOG), the applicable Anti-Money Laundering Regulations (Cayman AML Regulations) the Tax Information Authority (International Tax Compliance) (Common Reporting Standard) Regulations (Revised) (Cayman CRS Regulations) and, where applicable, The International Tax Co-operation (Economic Substance) Act (Revised) (ES Act).