Singapore processed $284 billion in cryptocurrency activity between July 1, 2025 and June 30, 2026, up 55.4% from the previous 12-month period, according to Chainalysis’ September 30 regional report. That made Singapore the largest crypto economy measured in Central & Southeast Asia and Oceania even as the wider region contracted 6.8%. The $284 billion figure measures crypto activity rather than new capital entering Singapore, household ownership or assets under management.
Professional-market activity accounted for a substantial part of the expansion. Chainalysis found that Singapore’s institutional-platform activity rose 94% year-over-year to $60 billion, with flows concentrated among a relatively small group of market makers, over-the-counter trading firms and institutional brokerages. Centralized-exchange flows increased 30%, while decentralized-exchange flows climbed 69%. Those figures indicate greater transaction activity across professional venues, but they do not identify the ultimate beneficial owners of all funds or establish that the same pace will persist.
Singapore’s Growth Extends Beyond One Adoption Metric
The Chainalysis numbers should also be separated from retail adoption surveys. Independent Reserve’s 2026 Singapore study found that 32% of respondents currently or previously owned crypto, up from 29% in 2025. On-chain transaction value and the percentage of residents with crypto exposure measure fundamentally different aspects of the market, a distinction also relevant to the recent comparison of Singapore’s survey-based crypto exposure data.
Singapore’s regulatory framework provides additional context without proving that regulation caused the increase. The Monetary Authority of Singapore already supervises digital payment token providers under the Payment Services Act, while on September 1 it opened a consultation on legislative amendments needed to implement its single-currency stablecoin framework. The consultation remains open until October 16. Singapore’s approach combines expanded digital-asset infrastructure with licensing, AML controls, consumer safeguards and specific regulatory requirements, rather than unrestricted market access. That licensing model is visible in recent cases such as Gemini obtaining a Singapore Major Payment Institution licence.
China Frames Crypto Through National Security
China is moving in a markedly different direction. In a September 28 security warning, the Ministry of State Security described virtual currencies as a potential “hotbed” for money laundering, a channel used in cyberattacks and an “accomplice” in espionage. The ministry argued that supposed crypto anonymity is misleading because public blockchain records preserve transaction histories and off-chain information such as device and IP data can sometimes help connect wallet activity to identities. The statement framed cryptocurrency as a possible payment and concealment mechanism in criminal or intelligence activity, not as technology inherently designed for espionage.
The warning itself did not introduce a new crypto ban. China’s current regulatory perimeter was reinforced months earlier, when eight agencies led by the People’s Bank of China issued rules on February 6 classifying domestic virtual-currency business activities as illegal financial activities and restricting services offered from overseas to mainland users. The framework also generally prohibits domestic real-world asset tokenization outside specifically approved financial infrastructure. The September security alert therefore reinforces an existing prohibition-oriented policy rather than creating a new legal regime. That approach is consistent with China’s broader restrictions on RWA tokenization and related financial activity.
The contrast is significant, but the available data does not establish that crypto activity is migrating directly from China to Singapore because of those policies. What can be established is a widening regulatory divergence: Singapore is building supervised channels for digital-asset activity while mainland China continues to restrict most crypto business and increasingly discusses it through financial- and national-security frameworks. For exchanges, market makers and institutional service providers operating across Asia, those differences create materially different licensing, compliance and market-access conditions rather than a single regional regulatory model.
