FinWikiPublic-source finance field guide
日EN

Japan stablecoin / BaaS bank perimeter (2025–2026)

ConfidenceLikelyUpdated2026-07-29Review by2026-10-27Sources12Machine-translatedOriginal (JA)

On this page

Wiki route

This entry sits under banking index as the bank-side perimeter view of the Japan stablecoin / electronic-payment-instrument (EPI) regulatory architecture. Read it with Three-Layer Structure of Japan's Stablecoin Regulatory Regime (JPYC, USDC, Project Pax) for the fintech-side perimeter view, with the platform anchor Progmat and the issuer anchors JPYC · SBI VC Trade USDC distribution, with jp-stablecoin-progmat detailed · jp trust-type SC architecture · jp-stablecoin-dcjpy · Japan stablecoin 2026 event tracker · Japan EPI three types overview · Japan EPI four camps comparison · institutional stablecoin deposit-token thesis, and with the BaaS framework at BaaS Japan landscape · Japan BaaS operating models. For license-stack context route through payment license stack · bank license / BaaS boundary.

TL;DR

Japan’s public-source perimeter distinguishes bank deposit tokens from electronic payment instruments (電子決済手段) under the Payment Services Act. The FSA explains that a category-1 EPI issuer may use the funds-transfer-business route, while a category-3 trust-beneficiary-right EPI may be issued by a licensed or registered trust company or an authorised trust financial institution; the trust route is therefore not limited to trust banks. Distribution or exchange requires separate electronic-payment-instrument service-provider registration. The FSA workbook dated 2026-06-24 lists one such operator, SBI VC Trade, and identifies USDC, RLUSD, and JPYSC in its handled-instrument field. Progmat supplies institutional tokenisation infrastructure rather than replacing the legal issuer, and Hokkokubank’s official release records the 2024-04-01 launch of the deposit-based 「トチカ」 service. ^[Sources: https://www.fsa.go.jp/news/27/sonota/20151214-2.html; https://www.fsa.go.jp/menkyo/menkyoj/denshikessaisyudan.xlsx; https://progmat.co.jp/about/; https://www.hokkokubank.co.jp/other/news/2024/pdf/20240401a.pdf.]

1. The three-layer perimeter

Layer Official route Confirmed perimeter Required current check
Deposit-based token / payment service Banking Act and product-specific legal analysis A service may represent a bank deposit on a digital rail while the underlying claim remains a deposit Product terms, deposit status, transfer conditions, and deposit-insurance treatment
Category-1 EPI issuance Funds-transfer-business registration is one example identified by the FSA Issuance and funds-transfer obligations sit with the registered issuer Current issuer registration and instrument terms
Category-3 trust-beneficiary-right EPI issuance Licensed / registered trust company plus filing, or authorised trust financial institution plus filing The FSA route is not limited to trust banks Exact issuer, trust authorisation, filing, and trust terms
EPI sale, exchange, intermediation, or management Electronic-payment-instrument service-provider registration Registration is activity-specific and separate from issuance Current FSA register and handled-instrument field
EPI / crypto-asset service intermediary New regime effective 2026-06-01 A registered intermediary may mediate specified transactions for an affiliated registered operator Affiliated operator, permitted activity, and current registration

Sources: ^[FSA FinTech FAQ Q9-1 to Q9-6, https://www.fsa.go.jp/news/27/sonota/20151214-2.html; FSA service-intermediary regime, https://www.fsa.go.jp/common/shinsei/denanchuukai/index.html; Payment Services Act, https://elaws.e-gov.go.jp/document?lawid=421AC0000000059.]

Deposit token — within the standard bank deposit regime

“Deposit token” is a product / architecture label, not enough by itself to determine legal treatment. Confirm from the bank’s terms whether the customer claim remains a deposit, who may transfer it, how it is redeemed, and which protections apply.

Verification question Primary evidence
Is the customer’s legal claim a bank deposit? Bank product terms and applicable Banking Act disclosure
Who may hold and transfer the token? Current product terms and system rules
Does deposit insurance apply? Product terms and Deposit Insurance Corporation / regulator guidance
Is another registration required for an intermediary? FSA register and activity-specific legal analysis

Sources: ^[FSA licensed-bank register, https://www.fsa.go.jp/menkyo/menkyoj/ginkou.xlsx; issuer product terms; Deposit Insurance Corporation guidance where applicable.]

Category-1 EPI issuance route

The FSA FAQ gives funds-transfer-business registration as an example of the procedure for issuing a category-1 EPI. Do not relabel the category as a generic “bank-issued deposit EPI” without instrument-specific legal documentation.

Verification question Primary evidence
Which statutory EPI category applies? Issuer legal documents and FSA guidance
Which entity is the issuer? Current register, filing, and instrument terms
Which entity sells, exchanges, mediates, or manages it? FSA EPI service-provider register
What redemption and safeguarding terms apply? Instrument terms and statutory disclosure

Sources: ^[FSA FinTech FAQ Q9, https://www.fsa.go.jp/news/27/sonota/20151214-2.html; current FSA EPI service-provider register.]

Trust-type EPI (信託型) — the institutional-platform lane

For a category-3 trust-beneficiary-right EPI, the FSA identifies two possible issuer routes: a licensed / registered trust company with the required filing, or an authorised trust financial institution with the required filing. A technology platform is not automatically the legal issuer.

Verification question Primary evidence
Is the issuer a trust company or authorised trust financial institution? FSA route, licence / authorisation, and required filing
What is the trust property and holder right? Trust deed and instrument terms
Who operates the technical platform? Platform and issuer contracts / announcements
Who performs distribution or management? Current FSA EPI service-provider register

Sources: ^[FSA FinTech FAQ Q9-1, https://www.fsa.go.jp/news/27/sonota/20151214-2.html; instrument-specific trust and issuer disclosures.]

3. Issuer / distributor anchor map (2025–2026)

Initiative / registry surface Confirmed public fact Status source Do not infer
FSA EPI service-provider register The 2026-06-24 workbook lists SBI VC Trade and handled instruments USDC, RLUSD, and JPYSC Current FSA workbook That the count or handled-instrument list is unchanged after the retrieval date
FSA service-intermediary regime New intermediary regime began on 2026-06-01 FSA regime page and future register That an intermediary is an issuer, principal dealer, or custodian
Progmat Official materials describe a tokenisation platform and concept Progmat company / dated project announcement Issuance, launch, issuer, or distribution status without an instrument-specific announcement
JPYC Corporate and product facts shown on its current official pages FSA registers plus issuer documents A historic or planned legal status as current
北國銀行「トチカ」 Official bank release records service launch on 2024-04-01 Bank release and current product terms That every deposit token has the same legal or transfer design
DCJPY Initiative facts shown in dated official project materials Current issuer / operator announcement A live multi-bank product or participant list without current confirmation

Sources: ^[FSA EPI service-provider workbook, https://www.fsa.go.jp/menkyo/menkyoj/denshikessaisyudan.xlsx; FSA intermediary regime, https://www.fsa.go.jp/common/shinsei/denanchuukai/index.html; Progmat official pages; 北國銀行 launch release, https://www.hokkokubank.co.jp/other/news/2024/pdf/20240401a.pdf.]

Why platform-provider ≠ issuer

  • Progmat’s regulatory burden is that of a technology and operating-platform provider, not a regulated financial institution.
  • Issuer status (and the corresponding 改正資金決済法 obligations) sits with the trust bank — keeping the consumer-protection and SC-redemption obligations on a regulated bank balance sheet.
  • Multiple trust banks can act as issuers on the same Progmat platform, enabling broader institutional adoption without bottlenecking on a single issuer.

This pattern mirrors the way BaaS separates the partner brand (UX layer) from the bank (license + balance sheet); Progmat separates the platform (technology) from the issuer (license + backing assets).

What regional banks can and cannot do

  • For a deposit-based product, confirm the bank, customer claim, product terms, and every participating intermediary.
  • For category-1 EPI issuance, confirm the funds-transfer or other applicable issuer route identified in official documents.
  • For category-3 EPI issuance, confirm whether the issuer is a licensed / registered trust company or an authorised trust financial institution and whether the required filing was made.
  • A bank’s participation in a consortium or technology pilot does not prove that it is an issuer or that a product is live.

BaaS partner-channel distribution

  1. EPI activity check. Selling, exchanging, mediating, or managing EPI may require electronic-payment-instrument service-provider registration; from 2026-06-01, specified mediation for an affiliated operator may use the new intermediary route. Determine the actual activity and legal entity. ^[Sources: https://www.fsa.go.jp/news/27/sonota/20151214-2.html; https://www.fsa.go.jp/common/shinsei/denanchuukai/index.html; https://www.fsa.go.jp/menkyo/menkyoj/denshikessaisyudan.xlsx.]
  2. Deposit-token integration. Confirm the underlying bank-deposit terms, legal entities, and intermediary roles for each implementation. 北國銀行’s official release confirms the 2024-04-01 launch of 「トチカ」; it does not establish the status of other initiatives.

6. Deposit-token vs stablecoin — the operational boundary

Dimension Deposit-based token / service EPI
Legal claim Verify that the customer claim remains a bank deposit Verify the applicable statutory EPI category and instrument terms
Issuer Bank identified in the product terms Category-1 or category-3 route identified in the issuer documents
Distribution / management Activity-specific analysis; a third party may need its own permission EPI service-provider registration generally applies to covered sale, exchange, intermediation, or management
Intermediary route Check banking / payment permissions for the actual activity 2026 service-intermediary route may apply to specified mediation for an affiliated operator
Deposit insurance Confirm from deposit terms and applicable official guidance Do not assume deposit insurance; use the instrument’s statutory safeguarding structure
Transfer and redemption Product-specific Instrument-specific

Sources: ^[FSA FinTech FAQ Q9, https://www.fsa.go.jp/news/27/sonota/20151214-2.html; Payment Services Act; FSA service-intermediary regime page.]

7. The four EPI camps (cross-cutting summary)

Research lane Authoritative status check Key distinction
Category-1 EPI issuer FSA funds-transfer register plus issuer terms Issuance is distinct from distribution
Category-3 trust EPI issuer Trust licence / authorisation, filing, and instrument terms Trust company route is not limited to trust banks
EPI service provider Current FSA register and handled-instrument field Registered activity is distinct from issuance
EPI / crypto service intermediary New-regime register and affiliated operator Mediation for an operator is distinct from principal dealing or custody
Deposit-based token Bank product terms, FSA bank register, and official launch notice Deposit status and transfer design are product-specific
Technology platform Platform and instrument-specific announcements Platform operator is not automatically issuer or distributor

Sources: •

For deeper comparison of the four camps and three issuer types, see Japan EPI four camps comparison and Japan EPI three types overview.

Sources

#banking#stablecoin#baas#regulatory-perimeter#EPI#electronic-payment-instrument

Discovery

Keep reading

Related

Read next