Bermuda’s early lead in digital assets gives it credibility as regulators seek alignment
Digital assets may be among the hardest areas in modern finance to regulate, but panellists at the 2026 BMA Forum made clear that regulation is no longer optional. As digital assets, stablecoins and tokenised instruments move further into mainstream finance, the challenge is shifting from whether to regulate to how to do so in a way that supports innovation, financial stability and cross-border interoperability.
They were speaking at the 2026 BMA Forum, entitled “Charting the Course: Managing Risk and Complexity in a Rapidly Evolving Landscape”, which took place in Bermuda last week. The session, “Fintech Panel: Fostering Cross-Border Collaboration in the Rapidly Changing Digital Asset Landscape”, was moderated by Chris Brummer, professor, Georgetown Law, and featured Ashley Scott, senior director of global policy and government affairs, Circle; Chris Land, general counsel to Senator Cynthia Lummis and staff director for the US Senate Banking Subcommittee on Digital Assets; Moad Fahmi, chief FinTech officer, Bermuda Monetary Authority; and Peter Kerstens, advisor, European Commission.
Brummer opened by noting that the panel brought together figures who had been at the forefront of international digital asset policy, both from a public and private sector perspective.
The conversation showed just how much the sector remains in flux. Digital assets are difficult to regulate not only because the technology evolves quickly, but because jurisdictions are trying to govern products that do not always fit neatly into existing categories of securities, commodities, payments or banking law.
Kerstens offered one of the clearest illustrations of that complexity. He said the European Union’s Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation, or MiCA, emerged initially from fear rather than enthusiasm. Policymakers who had previously paid little attention to digital assets were jolted into action when stablecoins appeared capable of scaling quickly through major technology platforms.
But while MiCA was born in that environment, he said the political mood has since changed. “We see a complete shift from fear into opportunity,” he said, adding that digital assets are increasingly seen as a way to modernise financial markets.
Even so, Kerstens cautioned that regulation in this space is never final. If history is any guide, he said, there will eventually be further iterations. But that does not necessarily mean a new framework should be rushed through. In his view, digital asset policy remains vulnerable to political swings and revisionism, particularly where scepticism remains strong.
That tension between urgency and uncertainty also came through in the US discussion. Land described the legislative path for digital asset market structure reform as “a roller coaster ride”, reflecting years of false starts and near breakthroughs. His message was that the US may now be close to action again, but it has taken repeated rounds of drafting, redrafting and negotiation to get there. That process, he suggested, reveals just how hard it is to legislate in an area where technology, market practice and politics all move quickly and not always in the same direction.
Fahmi brought the Bermuda perspective, and in doing so reinforced why the island continues to matter in this conversation. He said Bermuda has repeatedly updated its regime over the years and managed to keep it fit for purpose, but acknowledged that the task becomes more complicated as more jurisdictions enter the field. “There’s a greater need for international coordination to ensure that the skies remain safe,” he said. Standard-setting bodies have a role to play, he added, but bilateral coordination is also becoming critical.
That point mattered because Bermuda was repeatedly cited as having been ahead of many larger jurisdictions in approaching digital assets as a practical regulatory question rather than an ideological battle. Kerstens said that when Europe was designing MiCA, it actively looked around the world for inspiration and that Bermuda was a major reference point. He described the island as “the birthplace of international digital assets policy”, arguing that Bermuda had engaged the topic early in a non-politicised way by asking what sort of framework would allow innovation to flourish responsibly.
Scott echoed that view. She said Bermuda had often been “one step ahead” in thinking through the next issues likely to emerge, whether in stablecoins, tokenisation or the use of digital assets as collateral.
That shift is important, she suggested, because stablecoins are increasingly being viewed not as local novelties but as infrastructure with global potential. Scott described them as “an instrument to be used as a global financial asset”, which means reciprocity and cross-border recognition matter.
At a higher level, the panel suggested that the usual tension between competitiveness and regulation may look different in digital assets than in traditional financial services. Fahmi said he does not really see a trade-off between competitiveness and risk in this area because credibility itself is part of the competitive advantage. “The competitiveness comes not from looser regulation but more from clarity, credibility, proportionality, predictability,” he said.
Did you get value from this story? Sign up to our free newsletters and get stories like this sent straight to your inbox.
