Stablecoins in Kenya: Match Each Transaction Step to the Relevant Regulatory Perimeter
A Nairobi finance team receives a stablecoin payment proposal supported by a provider’s regulatory presentation. The useful question is whether the named legal entity can perform the specific service being purchased. A recognised platform brand does not answer that question on its own.
Start with the transaction, then identify the service
Paying a company’s own invoice, safeguarding assets for clients, exchanging foreign currency and issuing a stablecoin involve different functions. Break the proposed route into services before allocating regulatory responsibility. The corporate payer should also distinguish its own obligations from those of its intermediaries.
Kenya’s VASP regulations adopted on 22 July 2026 address foreign-currency conversion authorisation separately from stablecoin issuer requirements. They provide a more recent basis than the March consultation. The existence of a regulatory procedure does not establish that a particular firm has completed it.
The VASP Act’s First Schedule allocates activities between the Central Bank of Kenya and the Capital Markets Authority: stablecoin issuance and payment services sit with CBK, while exchanges and portfolio management sit with CMA. This helps identify the relevant authority but still requires classification of the actual service.
Build a perimeter review
The final instrument is Legal Notice 134, published on 22 July 2026. It must be distinguished from the March consultation draft: carrying draft numbering into a compliance file can point to the wrong provision.
Service or step | Identified authority / provision | What it establishes; evidence still needed |
|---|---|---|
Custodial wallets and payment processing | CBK; First Schedule, VASP Act 2025 | Supervisory categories; verify the licensed legal entity and exact service |
Virtual-asset exchange | CMA; same First Schedule | Exchange perimeter; not standalone evidence of authority to convert foreign currency |
Conversion between virtual assets and foreign currency | CBK; regulation 14 | Prior specific authorisation; inspect scope and current validity |
Client-asset custody | Regulation 66 | Client/proprietary asset separation; check addresses, records and reconciliations |
Local stablecoin issuance | CBK; regulations 67 and 70–71 | Issuance and offering/redemption framework; not automatic qualification of foreign tokens |
Under regulation 14, conversion authorisation expires at year-end unless revoked earlier; regulation 15 governs renewal. Treasury therefore needs evidence valid on the transaction date. The redemption provisions in regulation 71 apply within their statutory perimeter; they are not a universal redemption guarantee for every stablecoin holder.
Worked example: an overseas software licence
A Kenyan company owes USD 30,000 for software. Fictional provider A arranges the token purchase, B safeguards the wallet and the supplier accepts delivery on an agreed network. No market pricing is assumed.
The file contains B’s contract but only A’s marketing slides. The invoice also leaves unclear whether token delivery settles the dollar debt. The appropriate outcome is an incomplete route. The team should obtain evidence covering A’s service and the supplier’s written settlement terms before funding the wallet. Commercial urgency does not close either gap.
Allocate responsibility for the decision
Treasury describes the flow, amount and timing. Compliance reviews parties and evidence. Local advisers address the legal classification where required. The bank confirms funding and payout conditions. Decision makers receive a conclusion for each step, with unresolved issues visible.
Record when each status was checked and which document supports it. An old screenshot, a group name or an application is not equivalent to confirmed permission for the contracting entity.
How BECTRA supports the review
BECTRA can organise the transaction map, evidence file and conditions for a controlled pilot. The result should identify what needs further work, whom to consult and what would stop execution. It does not substitute for the operator’s permissions or local legal advice.
Further reading
Sources
Sources consulted on 17 October 2026. Decision tables and examples are BECTRA analytical constructions; fictional amounts are not market observations.
Comments