Chapter 6 · § 6.4 · Recipe
Per-Jurisdiction Notes
BSA, MiCA, the G20 perimeter — design considerations, not legal opinion.
Problem
What does the regulatory architecture look like in specific venues — the U.S., the EU, the UK, Singapore, the G20-style emerging perimeter?
Solution
Design considerations, not legal opinion. Starting points for in-venue counsel.
| Venue | Primary regimes | Surface |
|---|---|---|
| United States | BSA · FinCEN · FATCA · OFAC | Counterparty-side warrant model; sanctions-list non-membership attestation; aggregate-transfer thresholds |
| European Union | MiCA | e-money / asset-referenced regimes; reserve transparency via ZK reserve attestation; counterparty MiCA-licensing |
| United Kingdom | FCA · sanctions | Substantially similar surface to U.S. BSA at the counterparty layer; sanctions list management as ZK attestation |
| Singapore | MAS PSA | DPT regime; counterparty-licensing surface; AML/CFT via attestation library |
| G20 perimeter | FSB · BIS | Stablecoin standards anchoring on reserve transparency, redeemability, and operator resilience — all addressable as ZK-attested properties |
Discussion
The notes are design considerations, not legal opinion. They are intended to be the starting point for in-venue counsel. The cookbook is explicit that legal opinion is required in venue. The notes document what the design supports and what it does not, and what each jurisdiction's existing rules would, in our reading, accept or require additional construction to accept.
ℹ Note
This section is the part of the cookbook most likely to change as specific implementations land in specific venues. Live updates are tracked in the canonical version on sultanismyname.com.
See Also
- § 6.3 · The Warrant Model — the structure each venue's notes are built around
- FAQ — the per-jurisdiction question, answered plainly
❦ ❦ ❦