Industries
Regulatory solutions for the fastest-growing sectors of the digital economy.
Each sector carries a different risk profile, a different set of international standards and a different supervisory burden. These are the seven we build for.
What they have in common is that the activity crosses borders while the supervision does not. An operator can serve customers in forty countries from one licence, while the authority that licensed it has jurisdiction over one. Every framework below is designed around that asymmetry: what a single jurisdiction can actually see, evidence and enforce, and what it has to achieve through international standards and cooperation instead.
- I.
Online Gaming & Gambling
Licensing · Player protection · AML
- FATF Recommendations
- Responsible gambling codes
- Technical standards for RNG and game fairness
Licensing regimes, technical standards, player protection, responsible gambling supervision and AML integration for interactive and land-based operators.
Gaming supervision is defined by its recurring obligations rather than its licensing gate. A functioning regime has to operate a self-exclusion register that operators honour in the betting flow, verify identity before play rather than at withdrawal, monitor for problem-play indicators, and hold operators to technical standards on game fairness and random number generation. The hardest metric is channelling: the share of national gambling spend flowing through licensed operators. It is won at the payment rail and the app store, and lost when duty rises faster than enforcement capability.
- II.
Cryptocurrency
Exchange oversight · Custody · Travel rule
- FATF Recommendation 15 and 16
- Travel Rule messaging standards
- Custody and segregation requirements
Virtual asset service provider licensing, custody standards, market conduct rules and travel-rule compliance aligned with FATF guidance.
Virtual asset supervision turns on two questions: who is holding customer assets, and can transfers be traced. Custody standards determine what happens when a licensee fails, and the Travel Rule determines whether the jurisdiction can participate in cross-border payments without correspondent banking friction. Legislation is the easy half. Most jurisdictions that have passed Travel Rule rules cannot yet demonstrate that licensees transmit compliant messages in practice, and that gap is the most common finding in mutual evaluations.
- III.
Digital Assets
Issuance · Market conduct · Reporting
- Disclosure and prospectus regimes
- Market conduct and market abuse rules
- Prudential requirements
Issuance frameworks, disclosure regimes, secondary-market conduct and prudential requirements for regulated digital-asset businesses.
Digital-asset regimes have to decide whether they regulate the instrument or the venue. Regulating instruments routes assets into existing securities law and demands supervisors capable of applying decades of doctrine to novel facts. Regulating venues creates a clean licensing perimeter but a second rulebook to maintain. The choice determines what supervisors need to see: reserve composition and redemption performance, or order books and custody attestations.
- IV.
Digital Tokenisation
RWA frameworks · Registry · Settlement
- Registry and title frameworks
- Settlement finality rules
- Investor protection standards
Real-world asset tokenisation frameworks, registry infrastructure, settlement rules and investor protection standards.
Real-world asset tokenisation raises a question that predates blockchain: what legal effect does the token have on the underlying asset. A registry that is authoritative in law is the difference between a tokenised asset and a claim about one. Settlement finality, custody of the underlying, and the treatment of the token if the issuer fails all have to be settled in statute rather than in documentation.
- V.
Financial Transaction Services
Payments · PSP oversight · Prudential
- Safeguarding and segregation rules
- E-money and PSP prudential standards
- AML transaction monitoring
Payments oversight, PSP licensing, e-money regimes and prudential supervision of transaction service providers.
Payments supervision is prudential before it is conduct. Safeguarding customer funds, and being able to return them when an institution fails, is the obligation that matters most and the one most often under-specified. Beyond that, supervisors need visibility of transaction flows sufficient to detect financial crime without holding data they cannot protect.
- VI.
Prediction Markets
Event contracts · Market integrity · Settlement
- Market abuse and manipulation controls
- Objective resolution and settlement standards
- AML and consumer protection
Dedicated licensing for event-driven markets, covering market integrity, manipulation controls, objective resolution and settlement standards for exchange, order-book and event-contract models.
Prediction markets sit across categories that were drafted separately: betting, exchanges, derivatives and information markets. Supervising them properly means regulating the economic substance rather than the wrapper, with market-integrity controls closer to a trading venue than a sportsbook. Manipulation prevention, insider information procedures, conflicts management and objective, pre-disclosed resolution rules are the core of the regime.
- VII.
Emerging FinTech
Sandbox · Innovation licences · Supervision
- Proportionality principles
- Sandbox entry and exit criteria
- Consumer exposure limits
Regulatory sandboxes, innovation licences and proportionate supervision for novel financial technologies.
Innovation regimes exist to answer a narrow question: how does a supervisor let an untested model operate without either blocking it or exposing consumers to it at scale. Sandboxes work when they carry real limits on customer numbers and exposure, a defined exit, and a supervisor with the capacity to watch closely for the duration. Without those, a sandbox is a marketing exercise.
Two of these sectors have dedicated licensing products: the Guinea-Bissau Remote Gaming Licence and Prediction Market Licensing. Recent analysis across all seven is published in Insights.
Supervisory intensity
Not every sector needs the same regulator.
The resourcing question governments most often get wrong is treating supervision as a fixed cost per licensee. It is not. Three factors drive how much attention a sector actually consumes.
Custody of customer money. Where a licensee holds client funds, failure is not just a conduct problem, it is an insolvency problem with identifiable victims. Payments and virtual assets sit at the top of this scale, and demand prudential supervision rather than conduct supervision alone.
Speed of harm. Gambling harm accrues to an individual customer within a single session. That argues for controls that operate in the product itself, such as deposit limits and self-exclusion enforced in the betting flow, rather than for controls that depend on a supervisor noticing a pattern months later.
International scrutiny. Gambling and virtual assets both attract sustained attention from financial-integrity bodies. A jurisdiction supervising either is being assessed on effectiveness, not on its statute book, and needs the evidence of supervisory activity to exist as a by-product of normal operation.
The platform is configured against these differences rather than applying one supervisory model across every sector a jurisdiction licenses.
Frequently asked
Common questions about sector coverage.
Which sectors does TGMRC build regulatory frameworks for?
Seven: online gaming and gambling, cryptocurrency and virtual asset service providers, digital assets, real-world asset tokenisation, financial transaction services and payments, prediction markets, and emerging FinTech. Each carries a different risk profile, a different set of international standards and a different supervisory burden, but all are supervised through the same underlying platform and operating model.
Can a single authority supervise more than one of these sectors?
Yes, and for smaller jurisdictions it is usually the only affordable option. Licence types, conditions, reporting schemas, risk models and fee schedules are configured per sector on shared infrastructure, so one authority can supervise remote gaming, virtual asset service providers and payment institutions without a separate system or a separate agency for each. Adding a sector is a configuration exercise rather than a procurement.
What determines how demanding a sector is to supervise?
Three things: whether the licensee holds customer money, how quickly harm can occur, and how much international scrutiny the sector attracts. Payments and virtual assets score highest on the first, gambling on the second, and both gambling and virtual assets on the third because of FATF attention. Sectors that score high on all three need continuous supervision rather than periodic assessment, and should be resourced accordingly.
How do international standards affect a new regime?
They determine whether the licences a jurisdiction issues are accepted anywhere else. Banks, payment providers and B2B suppliers each assess a regime before onboarding its licensees, and international bodies assess the jurisdiction itself. A regime that does not align to the relevant standards can issue licences, but its licensees will struggle to obtain banking, which makes the licence commercially close to worthless.
Considering a new regime?