Advert
Advert – scroll down
Displaying the 30 latest comments.
Submitted | first-name | support | concern | top-concern | message |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2026-10-28 11:52:19 +02:00 | Jacobus | No I do not | Other | Despots and tyrants need to regulate, ban and block that which can free the people from their tyranny. | |
2026-10-28 11:32:17 +02:00 | Makhosazana | No I do not | The Inward Self-Custody Trap (Banning transfers from non-custodial wallets) | Individuala are legally prohibited from ever returning those assets to a licensed domestic exchange to liquidate into Rand. Inward transfers are only permitted if sent directly from an offshore Authorised CASP. This treats personal self-custody as illegitimate and traps savings offshore or outside the domestic banking network. | |
2026-10-26 08:11:58 +02:00 | kate | No I do not | Other | ||
2026-10-23 15:03:46 +02:00 | Abrie | No I do not | All of the above | Privacy Overreach & Permanent Ledger Tracking (POPIA / Section 14) | |
2026-10-22 21:24:34 +02:00 | Jaime | No I do not | All of the above | Privacy Overreach & Permanent Ledger Tracking (POPIA / Section 14) | While the aims of modernising exchange controls, aligning with FATF standards and combating illicit flows are legitimate, the draft achieves the opposite of sound, technology-neutral regulation. It creates a “cold storage trap” by treating transfers from self-hosted wallets into local authorised platforms as non-permissible. Individuals may move crypto out under the existing allowances, but are then blocked from returning it to a licensed South African exchange to sell into rand. This penalises ordinary self-custody rather than illicit activity. It also imposes a blanket prohibition on South African companies using crypto for any cross-border transaction. The same commercial payment that is permitted via traditional banking rails is banned when settled through a regulated blockchain channel. This directly contradicts the principle of technology neutrality previously stated by the SARB Governor and places local businesses at a structural disadvantage. These measures will push activity into less transparent channels, raise costs for legitimate users, and undermine the competitiveness of South Africa’s fintech sector. The manual should be substantially revised to permit inward transfers from self-custody subject to ordinary customer due diligence, and to give resident entities equivalent cross-border treatment to that available through banks. |
2026-10-21 08:36:43 +02:00 | Rixie | No I do not | The Inward Self-Custody Trap (Banning transfers from non-custodial wallets) | Inward transfers should be permitted subject to standard Customer Due Diligence (CDD), source-of-funds verification, and blockchain forensic risk scoring under the FIC Act. | |
2026-10-20 09:57:00 +02:00 | Michele | No I do not | All of the above | The Inward Self-Custody Trap (Banning transfers from non-custodial wallets) | |
2026-10-20 09:00:24 +02:00 | Mighael Hans | Yes I do | The Blanket Prohibition on Corporate/Business Cross-Border Payments | ||
2026-10-20 07:51:36 +02:00 | Rui | No I do not | Discrimination Against Technology (Breach of Governor Kganyago's Principle) | ||
2026-10-17 12:17:45 +02:00 | Paul | No I do not | All of the above | The Inward Self-Custody Trap (Banning transfers from non-custodial wallets) | |
2026-10-16 21:18:32 +02:00 | Colin | No I do not | The Inward Self-Custody Trap (Banning transfers from non-custodial wallets) | ||
2026-10-16 16:38:37 +02:00 | ETIENNE | No I do not | Privacy Overreach & Permanent Ledger Tracking (POPIA / Section 14) | ||
2026-10-16 16:32:55 +02:00 | Gavin | No I do not | All of the above | The Inward Self-Custody Trap (Banning transfers from non-custodial wallets) | I demand that FinSurv remove the non-permissible classification for inward transfers from self-hosted wallets. Inward transfers should be permitted subject to standard Customer Due Diligence (CDD), source-of-funds verification, and blockchain forensic risk scoring under the FIC Act. |
2026-10-16 11:15:05 +02:00 | Kyle | No I do not | All of the above | The Inward Self-Custody Trap (Banning transfers from non-custodial wallets) | I believe this is dressed up under false pretenses. The SARB is a private centralized institution that wants control of all South Africans and their funds. Decentralized systems, through their transparent and sovereign means, will reveal the way they fraudulently control the financial system and attempt to maintain the highest level of control in our country, continuing to benefit shareholders or central banks, the International Bank of Settlements, International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank, among others. This is an outrageous attempt to violate the basic human rights of property ownership and the right to prosper. |
2026-10-16 09:28:00 +02:00 | Johan | No I do not | All of the above | The Inward Self-Custody Trap (Banning transfers from non-custodial wallets) | |
2026-10-15 13:06:47 +02:00 | Louisa | No I do not | All of the above | Privacy Overreach & Permanent Ledger Tracking (POPIA / Section 14) | The government taxes you in the money earned and can see when monies are deposited into your bank account therefore you are already tax and the flow of money is already captured and recorded, so why would the government want to restrict the method of money movement. |
2026-10-13 19:02:20 +02:00 | mark | No I do not | All of the above | The Inward Self-Custody Trap (Banning transfers from non-custodial wallets) | some of the points will give goverment more power that will be used to abuse us in other areas also |
2026-10-13 07:16:59 +02:00 | Tracy | No I do not | All of the above | Threat to Domestic Fintech Jobs, Foreign Investment & Tax Revenue | |
2026-10-12 22:01:01 +02:00 | Sipho | No I do not | Privacy Overreach & Permanent Ledger Tracking (POPIA / Section 14) | I am concerned about the privacy implications and overreach of the Crypto Asset Manual. The permanent ledger tracking requirements violate privacy rights and create unnecessary surveillance burdens on ordinary South Africans. | |
2026-10-12 10:48:56 +02:00 | Mary | No I do not | All of the above | The Blanket Prohibition on Corporate/Business Cross-Border Payments | |
2026-10-11 07:40:15 +02:00 | Themba | No I do not | All of the above | The Inward Self-Custody Trap (Banning transfers from non-custodial wallets) | The proposed Crypto Asset Manual imposes overly restrictive measures that hinder innovation and individual financial sovereignty. I object to the blanket restrictions on self-custody and the prohibitive entry barriers for businesses. |
2026-10-11 07:13:53 +02:00 | Scott | No I do not | All of the above | The Inward Self-Custody Trap (Banning transfers from non-custodial wallets) | The proposed regulations are a blatant overreach of government oversight and control. Alternative methods of identifying illegal activities need to be considered. |
2026-10-11 07:13:23 +02:00 | Jerusha | No I do not | The Blanket Prohibition on Corporate/Business Cross-Border Payments | This is too far reaching into business operations. If I want to pay with crypto for business there are real advantages for intl purchases via a more stable fiat compared to the rand. This doesn't concern SARS and the priority should be to foster businesses in SA - not unnecessarily restrict them. | |
2026-10-10 09:23:08 +02:00 | C | No I do not | The Inward Self-Custody Trap (Banning transfers from non-custodial wallets) | ||
2026-10-10 04:10:53 +02:00 | Sipho | No I do not | Other | The Inward Self-Custody Trap (Banning transfers from non-custodial wallets) | The proposed Crypto Asset Manual imposes unnecessary restrictions on non-custodial wallets and stifles innovation. The current draft lacks technical neutrality and creates undue administrative burden. Please reconsider these measures to protect consumer freedom and promote a fair digital asset environment in South Africa. |
2026-10-09 13:33:37 +02:00 | Thabang | No I do not | The Inward Self-Custody Trap (Banning transfers from non-custodial wallets) | ||
2026-10-09 12:29:53 +02:00 | j | No I do not | The Inward Self-Custody Trap (Banning transfers from non-custodial wallets) | The “Cold Storage Trap”: Classifying inward transfers from non-custodial wallets as non-permissible penalises the foundational property of public blockchain technology: individual self-custody. It creates a one-way street where citizens can take custody of their digital property, but are legally locked out of the domestic banking system if they ever wish to repatriate it. | |
2026-10-09 07:09:43 +02:00 | Anke | No I do not | The Blanket Prohibition on Corporate/Business Cross-Border Payments | ||
2026-10-08 23:31:53 +02:00 | Maggi | Yes I do | Other | ||
2026-10-08 12:13:08 +02:00 | Courteney | No I do not | All of the above | Privacy Overreach & Permanent Ledger Tracking (POPIA / Section 14) |
-
- Curbing Regulatory Arbitrage:
Unregulated cross-border crypto movements undermine the foreign exchange framework. Bringing crypto transactions within standard balance-of-payments reporting ensures that fintech entities face the same compliance oversight as commercial banks. - Defending the Fiscus & National Currency:
In an era of borderless digital finance, untracked capital outflows threaten domestic macroeconomic stability and the South African Rand. Comprehensive surveillance enables FinSurv to track the true volume of capital moving across borders. - Protecting International Financial Standing:
Following South Africa’s removal from the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) grey list, closing cross-border anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing (AML/CFT) loopholes is necessary to maintain global banking relationships. - Ensuring Platform Solvency:
Enforcing a minimum unimpaired capital reserve of R5 million and mandating client asset segregation protects everyday consumers from exchange collapses and fraudulent practices. - Structured Industry Pathways:
The manual replaces legal ambiguity with a defined, tiered licensing model (Category 1, 2, and 3), providing institutional legitimacy for compliant operators.
- Curbing Regulatory Arbitrage:
-
- Breach of Technology Neutrality:
SARB Governor Lesetja Kganyago stated that “similar payment activities should be subject to similar regulatory expectations, whether they are performed by a bank or a fintech.” The draft manual breaches this principle by permitting businesses to execute international vendor settlements via SWIFT while outright banning the exact same economic transaction if routed through regulated blockchain rails. - The “Cold Storage Trap”:
Classifying inward transfers from non-custodial wallets as non-permissible penalizes the foundational property of public blockchain technology: individual self-custody. It creates a one-way street where citizens can take custody of their digital property, but are legally locked out of the domestic banking system if they ever wish to repatriate it. - Economic Isolation of South African Enterprise:
Banning South African companies and trusts from cross-border crypto rails isolates the domestic tech sector, digital exporters, and Web3 startups from the global digital economy, preventing them from using efficient stablecoin settlement channels. - Threat to Domestic Jobs & Foreign Investment:
The industry-led CATASTROPHE coalition (including VALR, Luno, AltCoinTrader, and EasyEquities) warns that billions of Rands in foreign direct investment into South African fintech have been frozen, putting thousands of skilled jobs and significant corporate and PAYE tax contributions at immediate risk. - Perverse Incentive for Unregulated Flight:
Imposing non-workable restrictions will not stop digital asset usage; it will simply drive liquidity away from compliant domestic exchanges into unregulated offshore peer-to-peer (P2P) networks, blinding both FinSurv and SARS. - Administrative Cart Before the Horse:
Requesting public commentary on operational directives while the parent Capital Flow Management Regulations remain unresolved undermines procedural fairness under PAJA.
- Breach of Technology Neutrality: