TURKEY Law and Practice Contributed by: Caghan Tansel, TANSEL
6.2 Stablecoins 6.2.1 Fiat Currency and Algorithmic Stablecoins Turkish law does not make a specific regulatory dis- tinction between fiat-backed stablecoins and algo- rithmic stablecoins, and there is no separate statu- tory definition of “stablecoin”. Instead, both would generally be analysed under the broad crypto-asset definition in the Capital Markets Law/CMB framework, namely intangible assets that may represent value or rights and that are created, stored and distributed electronically through distributed-ledger or similar technology. The CMB’s CASP regime regulates the service activity around such assets – listing, trading, transfer, custody and initial sale/distribution – rather than creating a separate reserve-backed versus algo- rithmic stablecoin taxonomy. In practice, a fiat-backed stablecoin may raise addi- tional questions around reserves, redemption claims, e-money/payment characterisation, custody and issuer disclosures, while an algorithmic stablecoin would raise heightened concerns around peg stabil- ity, smart-contract design, market integrity and risk disclosure; however, these differences are addressed through general crypto-asset listing, risk, custody, AML and conduct requirements rather than through a specific stablecoin regime. In all cases, stablecoins should not be presented as payment instruments in Türkiye, because the Central Bank’s 2021 regulation continues to prohibit the direct or indirect use of cryp- to-assets in payments. 6.2.2 Stablecoin Regulation Fiat-Backed Stablecoins Türkiye does not currently have a bespoke fiat-backed stablecoin regime or a separate statutory definition of “stablecoin”. Fiat-backed stablecoins are gener- ally analysed under the broad crypto-asset concept in the Capital Markets Law/CMB framework if they are created, stored and distributed electronically through distributed-ledger or similar technology and represent value or rights. The CMB regime therefore regulates the service activity around such assets – list- ing, trading, transfer, custody, initial sale/distribution and related platform activity – rather than imposing a MiCA-style issuer regime with reserve, redemption and stabilisation requirements specifically for fiat- backed stablecoins.
cle 49 of the Turkish Code of Obligations provides the general basis for tort liability where a person unlaw- fully and culpably causes damage to another, while Article 50 places the burden of proving damage and fault on the claimant. From a regulatory perspective, the key issue is not whether a project describes itself as “decentralised” but whether there is an identifiable person carrying out regulated crypto-asset services or targeting Turkish users. The CMB’s 2025 CASP framework regulates establishment, operation, suspension of activities, custody and supervision of CASPs, and the CMB has also used access-blocking mechanisms against web- sites providing unauthorised crypto-asset services to persons in Türkiye. Accordingly, the main liability risk for DeFi in Türkiye is likely to arise where iden- tifiable actors facilitate access, market the protocol, control assets or maintain a commercial relationship with Turkish users, rather than from the existence of a decentralised protocol alone. Payments in crypto-assets are not permitted in Türki- ye. The Central Bank of the Republic of Türkiye’s 2021 Regulation on the Disuse of Crypto Assets in Pay- ments remains in force and prohibits crypto-assets from being used directly or indirectly as a means of payment. The regulation also prevents payment ser- vice providers from developing business models in which crypto-assets are used directly or indirectly in payment services or e-money issuance, and restricts payment and e-money institutions from intermediating fund transfers to or from platforms providing crypto- asset trading, custody, transfer or issuance services. This does not prohibit holding, trading, transferring or custody of crypto-assets as such, which are now dealt with separately under the Capital Markets Board’s CASP regime; however, crypto-assets, including sta- blecoins, should not be structured as merchant pay- ment, checkout, payment-settlement or e-money-like products in Türkiye. 6. Payments and Stablecoins 6.1 Payments
669 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook