Crypto Regulation Comparison Tool
Overview
This tool compares the key regulatory differences between Bappebti (pre-2025) and OJK (post-2025) frameworks for crypto assets in Indonesia.
Use the dropdown below to filter by aspect or view all comparisons.
| Aspect | Bappebti (Pre-2025) Commodity Bappebti | OJK (Post-2025) Digital Financial Asset OJK |
|---|---|---|
| Legal classification | Commodity | Digital financial asset |
| Primary regulator | Bappebti | OJK (with BI for payment systems) |
| Regulatory basis | Regulation No. 8/2021 & 13/2022 | Regulation No. 27/2024 & Law No. 4/2023 |
| Licensing focus | Asset approval & market entry | Capital adequacy, risk management, ongoing reporting |
| Scope of services | Physical market trading only | Trading, settlement, custodial services, tokenized securities |
| Investor protection | Basic KYC/AML, market surveillance | Enhanced consumer-risk disclosures, insurance requirements, dispute resolution |
Key Takeaway
The shift from Bappebti to OJK represents a major evolution from commodity-based oversight to a comprehensive financial services framework for digital assets. This change enhances investor protection and aligns Indonesia’s crypto regulations with international standards.
Quick takeaways
- Bappebti regulated crypto as a commodity until Jan102025.
- The handover to OJK re‑classifies crypto as a digital financial asset.
- Existing licenses were carried over, but new compliance rules now apply.
- OJK Regulation No.27/2024 is the core legal framework for crypto trading.
- Market participants must adapt to dual oversight from OJK and Bank Indonesia.
Who was Bappebti and what did it control?
When Indonesia first opened its doors to digital currencies, Bappebti (the Commodity Futures Trading Supervisory Body) acted as the primary regulator. Under Regulation No.8/2021 and its 2022 amendment, crypto assets were treated as commodities, not securities. This meant every token had to be approved, listed, and traded on a physical crypto market overseen by Bappebti.
During its tenure, Bappebti built the first legal crypto exchange, a clearing house, and a storage manager - all to give investors certainty. By mid‑2023 the agency had registered 501 cryptocurrencies, including Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Solana, and enabled more than 17million Indonesian investors to trade.
How did Bappebti issue crypto licenses?
The licensing workflow was straightforward but strict. A crypto‑related entity first submitted a detailed application covering technology, security, AML/KYC procedures, and capital adequacy. Bappebti’s review team then ran a compliance checklist against Regulation No.13 of 2022, which clarified the documentation required for physical market trading.
If the token passed the eligibility test, Bappebti issued a registration certificate that allowed the asset to be listed on an approved exchange. Licenses were renewable annually, and any breach of the commodity‑focused rules could trigger suspension or revocation.
Why the shift to OJK?
Indonesia’s financial ecosystem was evolving fast. Law No.4 of2023 (the P2SK Law) mandated a move from commodity‑based oversight to a full‑blown financial‑services framework. The goal was to align crypto regulation with global standards and to let the Financial Services Authority (OJK) apply its experience from securities, banking, and insurance to digital assets.
On January102025, a formal handover ceremony at the Ministry of Trade in Jakarta marked the end of Bappebti’s authority. Acting Bappebti chief Tommy Andana, Bank Indonesia’s Donny Hutabarat, and OJK deputies Moch. Ihsanuddin and I.B.Aditya Jayaantara signed the Minutes of Handover (BAST) and a Memorandum of Understanding, sealing the transition.
What does OJK’s new framework look like?
OJK introduced Regulation No.27/2024 (dated Dec102024) to govern “digital financial assets.” The key changes are:
- Crypto assets are now classified as digital financial assets, moving them out of the commodity bucket.
- Licensing requirements broaden to include capital reserves, risk‑based supervision, and continuous reporting similar to traditional financial institutions.
- Existing Bappebti licenses are grandfathered for a transition period, after which full OJK compliance is mandatory.
- Bank Indonesia retains authority over payment‑system aspects, creating a dual‑regulation model.
The OJK framework also defines new entities: Digital Financial Asset Traders (formerly “Crypto Asset Traders”), custodians, and settlement providers. All must register on OJK’s digital asset portal and obey anti‑money‑laundering standards aligned with the Financial Action Task Force (FAFAT).
How do crypto exchanges and service providers adapt?
Exchanges that were licensed by Bappebti needed to submit a migration plan to OJK within 90days of the handover. The plan had to demonstrate:
- Updated AML/KYC systems that meet OJK’s risk‑assessment matrix.
- Proof of adequate capital (IDR500billion minimum for Tier‑1 traders).
- Technical safeguards for market integrity, including real‑time monitoring and incident response protocols.
Many platforms seized the opportunity to broaden their product suite, adding futures, options, and tokenized securities that now fall under OJK’s broader mandate. The clearing house established under Bappebti was absorbed by OJK’s market infrastructure unit, ensuring continuity for settlement and custody.
Comparison: Bappebti vs. OJK oversight
| Aspect | Bappebti (pre‑2025) | OJK (post‑2025) |
|---|---|---|
| Legal classification | Commodity | Digital financial asset |
| Primary regulator | Bappebti | OJK (with BI for payment systems) |
| Regulatory basis | Regulation No.8/2021 &13/2022 | Regulation No.27/2024 & Law No.4/2023 |
| Licensing focus | Asset approval & market entry | Capital adequacy, risk management, ongoing reporting |
| Scope of services | Physical market trading only | Trading, settlement, custodial services, tokenized securities |
| Investor protection | Basic KYC/AML, market surveillance | Enhanced consumer‑risk disclosures, insurance requirements, dispute resolution |
Market impact after the transition
Despite the regulatory overhaul, Indonesia’s crypto volumes kept climbing. IDR650trillion in 2024 surged to an estimated IDR720trillion by mid‑2025, driven by institutional interest and the new clarity OJK provided. Analysts point to the dual‑regulator model - OJK handling asset‑related activities while Bank Indonesia oversees payment‑system integration - as a key factor in stabilising confidence.
Foreign crypto service providers now see a clearer path to market entry: they submit a single OJK application, demonstrate compliance with global AML standards, and benefit from Indonesia’s large user base (over 20million active crypto wallets). At the same time, local exchanges have upgraded their tech stacks to meet the stricter risk‑management criteria, which encourages more sophisticated products such as crypto‑backed loans and tokenized real‑estate.
What does the future hold?
OJK’s mandate includes a “Digital Financial Innovation” (DFI) agenda that encourages sandbox testing for emerging tech like DeFi protocols, NFT marketplaces, and central‑bank digital currencies (CBDCs). The regulator has already announced a pilot sandbox for decentralized finance, aiming to balance innovation with consumer protection.
Legal scholars from SSEK note that the shift could eventually re‑classify certain tokens as securities, especially those offering profit‑sharing or voting rights. If that happens, OJK will apply its securities‑market rules, adding another layer of compliance but also opening doors to institutional capital.
For now, the most pragmatic advice for market participants is to:
- Audit existing Bappebti licences and map them to OJK requirements.
- Upgrade AML/KYC and reporting systems to meet OJK’s risk‑based standards.
- Engage with Bank Indonesia on payment‑system integration to avoid regulatory gaps.
- Monitor OJK’s sandbox announcements for early‑access opportunities.
By following these steps, businesses can turn the regulatory change from a hurdle into a growth catalyst.
Frequently Asked Questions
Did Bappebti licences become invalid after Jan2025?
No. All licences issued by Bappebti were temporarily grandfathered. Holders must submit a migration dossier to OJK within 90days, after which the licence is re‑issued under OJK’s framework.
What new capital requirement does OJK impose on crypto exchanges?
Tier‑1 digital‑asset traders need at least IDR500billion in liquid capital; Tier‑2 entities require IDR200billion. The amount is verified annually through audited financial statements.
How does Bank Indonesia fit into the new crypto regulatory landscape?
Bank Indonesia oversees the payment‑system side of digital assets-things like stablecoin settlement, cross‑border remittances, and any crypto‑linked payment rails. It works alongside OJK, which handles trading, custody, and asset‑service regulation.
Can foreign crypto firms apply for an OJK licence?
Yes. OJK accepts applications from foreign entities provided they establish a local legal presence, meet capital thresholds, and comply with Indonesia’s AML/KYC rules. The process is now a single OJK submission rather than a dual Bappebti‑OJK route.
What is the timeline for OJK’s DeFi sandbox?
OJK announced the sandbox pilot in Q32025 with an open‑call for proposals. Selected projects will receive a 12‑month testing period, after which they can apply for a full licence if they meet risk‑management standards.
The shift from Bappebti to OJK was long overdue. Commodity classification never fit crypto-it’s financial infrastructure, not soy futures. The dual-regulator model is messy, but at least it’s intentional.
I’m so glad this is finally happening!!!
So many people were getting scammed under the old system.
OJK knows how to protect people.
Finally, some real oversight.
Thank you, Indonesia.
👏
While the transition from Bappebti to OJK represents a significant institutional upgrade, it is imperative to acknowledge the structural complexities inherent in dual-regulatory oversight. The delineation of responsibilities between OJK and Bank Indonesia, while theoretically sound, introduces potential jurisdictional ambiguity in the enforcement of anti-money laundering protocols, particularly concerning cross-border stablecoin transactions. The absence of a unified reporting framework may inadvertently create regulatory arbitrage opportunities for market participants operating at the intersection of payment systems and asset trading.
Big win for Indonesia. This isn’t just regulation-it’s infrastructure building.
Exchanges that upgraded early? They’re already seeing institutional money flow in. The capital requirements are tough, but they’re filtering out the fly-by-night operators.
If you’re a dev or founder here, don’t see this as a hurdle. See it as your launchpad.
Finally! The Bappebti era was like trying to regulate the internet with a typewriter-functional, but wildly outdated. OJK’s framework? Now we’re talking real financial infrastructure: capital buffers, risk-weighted exposure, real-time monitoring. And the DeFi sandbox? That’s the future right there.
Tokenized real estate? Crypto-backed loans? These aren’t buzzwords-they’re the next wave. And yes, the dual-regulator model is clunky, but it’s also pragmatic: BI handles rails, OJK handles assets. No one’s reinventing the wheel, just upgrading the engine.
Pro tip: if you’re still using Bappebti’s old KYC checklist, you’re already behind. OJK’s risk matrix is not optional-it’s your survival guide.
Interesting. I didn’t realize how much had changed. Guess I need to check my exchange again.
Man, this is huge for Africa too. Nigeria’s been struggling with the same chaos. Indonesia’s showing how you can do it right-clear rules, real capital, no scams.
Foreign firms can apply? That’s a game-changer. More competition means better tech, better security, better prices for users.
Keep going, Indonesia. You’re setting the standard.
One cannot help but observe the profound intellectual bankruptcy of treating digital assets as anything less than securities. The OJK’s decision to classify them as 'digital financial assets' is a semantic sleight-of-hand designed to appease populists while avoiding the rigorous fiduciary obligations mandated under securities law. The so-called 'dual-regulator' model is merely a bureaucratic façade-Bank Indonesia’s involvement in payment rails is a distraction from the core issue: these are investment contracts, and they must be regulated as such. The 500 billion IDR capital requirement? A token gesture. What about investor disclosure standards? What about mandatory prospectuses? What about liability for platform failures? The entire framework is a charade dressed in regulatory jargon.
It is not merely a regulatory transition-it is a moral imperative. The prior regime permitted unvetted tokens, inadequate custody protocols, and unregulated leverage. The OJK framework, while imperfect, introduces accountability. To those who decry the capital requirements as burdensome, I ask: would you entrust your life savings to an unlicensed broker? No. Then why should you trust an exchange that refuses to meet basic financial integrity standards? The era of 'move fast and break things' is over. Responsibility is not optional. It is the foundation of trust.
Big step forward. The old system felt like letting a teenager run a bank. Now at least there’s an adult in the room.
Hope the smaller exchanges can keep up. The capital requirements are brutal, but honestly? They needed to be.
Oh, so now crypto is a 'digital financial asset'-not a commodity, not a security, but… a *thing*? Fascinating. Let me guess, next they’ll call it a 'digital financial experience' and require a wellness certificate.
Meanwhile, the real story is this: Bappebti was a joke, OJK is a bureaucracy, and Bank Indonesia is the quiet guy in the corner who actually knows what’s going on with the money moving.
And yes, the 500 billion IDR capital requirement? That’s not to protect investors-it’s to keep out anyone without a hedge fund backing. Innovation? More like consolidation under the big players. But hey, at least now the scams are more professional.
Let’s be honest: this transition was inevitable, but the execution is still dangerously naive. The DeFi sandbox is a dangerous experiment-DeFi protocols are inherently uncontrolled, permissionless, and often anonymous. Allowing them to operate under an OJK pilot is like letting a wildfire burn in a national park and calling it 'controlled experimentation.'
And let’s not pretend that grandfathering Bappebti licenses means anything. Many of those exchanges were barely compliant under the old regime. Now they’re being given a free pass to upgrade… or not. Where’s the enforcement? Where’s the audit trail? Where’s the accountability?
This isn’t progress. It’s a pause before the next crash.