Ghana’s Digital Asset Rules Face Their Real Test: Trust Beyond the Law

Ghana has moved past the question of whether virtual assets belong in the regulatory perimeter. Its more difficult question is how to supervise a market that already has millions of participants without smothering useful financial innovation or leaving customers exposed. That was the practical tension at the second Digital Asset Summit Africa in Accra, where officials and industry figures pressed for rules that investors and ordinary users can trust.

The timing matters. Ghana’s Virtual Asset Service Providers Act, 2025, known as Act 1154, already provides the legal foundation for registering, licensing and supervising providers. The summit did not create that law, and the existence of a legal framework does not mean every platform is approved. What comes next is the operational work: detailed requirements, coordination among authorities, credible compliance at firms and clear information for the public.

Why the discussion has shifted

Ghana News Agency reported that Bank of Ghana officials used the summit to stress the scale of activity and the need for protection. Philip Kwaw Sebuabe, who heads the central bank’s Virtual Assets Department, said more than three million people in Ghana participate in virtual-asset activity. A separate Bank of Ghana policy notice also describes an ecosystem of more than three million users. That estimate explains why regulators see inaction as a risk, but it should not be mistaken for a count of customers of licensed firms or proof that any particular token is safe.

At the same event, Owurieku Asare, the central bank’s director of financial technology and innovation, pointed to Ghana’s mobile-money experience. According to figures he cited, annual transaction counts rose from about three billion in 2020 to nearly 10 billion in 2025. The lesson is not that crypto will follow the same path. Mobile money and virtual assets have different business models, price risks and consumer protections. The relevant lesson is that adoption can move faster than institutions if the rules are not designed for scale.

Summit convener Peter Frimpong Manso argued that blockchain, stablecoins and tokenisation could build on the reach of mobile money rather than replace it. That is a proposition for companies and regulators to test, not a guaranteed outcome. A tokenised asset must still have enforceable rights behind it; a stablecoin needs a credible account of its reserves and redemption; a payments product has to demonstrate that it is cheaper, reliable and lawful in actual use. Technology alone does not supply those conditions.

What Ghana’s framework covers

The Bank of Ghana’s virtual-assets portal says its new Virtual Assets Department will work with the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Financial Intelligence Centre. Its stated goals include financial stability, consumer protection, financial-crime controls, cybersecurity and room for responsible innovation. The central bank lists exchanges, wallet providers, investment advisers, token issuers, stablecoin issuers and other virtual-asset businesses among activities that may require registration or a licence. The precise obligation can depend on the service being offered and the implementing rules.

That division of responsibility is important. An exchange, a custody service and an issuer of investment-like tokens do not create identical risks. Supervision based on activity can direct attention to where customer funds are held, how assets are marketed and what happens if a firm fails. It also reduces the temptation to treat every company with the word blockchain in its pitch as if it were doing the same thing. Asare told the summit that Act 1154 calls for a Virtual Asset Coordinating Committee, a mechanism intended to help regulators work across those boundaries.

Some of that work is still in development. The Bank of Ghana’s public portal describes an application-process page and a fees page as forthcoming, while its financial-stability review says the securities regulator has been preparing subsidiary rules and supervisory guidance. The Ghana Securities and Exchange Commission has also named participants in its virtual-asset sandbox, which allows selected services to be tested under regulatory observation. A sandbox place is not the same as unrestricted market approval. Firms and customers need to check the current status of a service rather than infer authorisation from a conference appearance or a government logo in promotional material.

The consumer-protection test

The most useful test of the new regime will be visible protections in everyday transactions. Customers need to know who holds their assets, whether company funds and customer assets are separated, how withdrawals work and what recourse exists after a cyberattack or business failure. Disclosure should explain the possibility of price loss plainly. A product called a stablecoin can still carry issuer, reserve, redemption and operational risks; a platform’s promise of fast settlement does not eliminate the possibility of fraud.

For providers, compliance cannot be a document assembled after a product gains traction. Firms need governance, security controls, transaction monitoring, record-keeping and an honest account of their exposure to counterparties. Sebuabe highlighted cybersecurity, anti-money-laundering controls and asset protection at the summit. Those requirements impose costs, especially on small entrants, but weak controls can impose larger costs on the public and on legitimate firms when a failure damages trust in the entire market.

Regulators also face a communication task. They should publish accessible registers of authorised firms, explain what approval does and does not cover, and distinguish warnings about scams from a blanket rejection of technology. Clear public records can help customers verify a provider before transferring money. They can also give serious startups a path to demonstrate that their business model meets Ghana’s standards.

An African market cannot be supervised in isolation

Digital assets move across borders, and so can the risks attached to them. A Ghanaian user may deal with an offshore platform, while a locally incorporated company may serve customers elsewhere. Sebuabe urged greater collaboration among African regulators, according to GNA. That is more than a diplomatic aspiration: authorities need ways to share information, compare licensing approaches and respond when an operator spans multiple jurisdictions. The goal should be to close obvious gaps without assuming every market will adopt identical rules at the same speed.

There is an economic opportunity in getting the balance right. Ghanaian developers and financial firms could build useful infrastructure for payments, investment administration or asset records. But an investment case should rest on demonstrable demand, lawful operations and protections that survive a bad market day. Large user estimates and a summit theme about jobs do not, by themselves, establish that digital assets will deliver employment or cheaper finance.

Ghana now has the legal starting point and a regulator publicly explaining its approach. The next markers are less ceremonial: published operating rules, an understandable authorisation process, enforceable safeguards and evidence that customers can identify which firms are accountable. If those pieces arrive together, the country can test digital-asset innovation on firmer ground. If they do not, the gap between activity and protection will remain the defining story.