Soda Labs

Belgium

EU baseline, with no national layer on confidentiality

JurisdictionEuropeConfidential with disclosure

Confidentiality is workable so long as the regulated firm can identify the parties and disclose on demand. Encrypted amounts are not the thing being restricted.

What Belgium actually says

Belgium adds no national layer on confidentiality, and that is worth stating plainly rather than manufacturing local colour. The authority to deal with is the FSMA, working alongside the National Bank on prudential questions, and the rules that actually bite are the European ones covered elsewhere in this section: identity attached to every transfer regardless of size, and from July 2027 a bar on regulated firms keeping accounts that anonymise the holder. Nothing Belgian restricts anonymity-enhancing assets or self-hosted wallets. For anyone mapping obligations, that means the Belgian answer is the European answer.

The instruments that matter

FSMA is the competent authority
for authorising and supervising crypto-asset service providers under the European regime, alongside the National Bank on prudential matters
The binding rules are European
the travel rule applies to every transfer with no minimum value, and from 10 July 2027 regulated firms may not keep accounts that anonymise the holder
No national divergence located
we found no Belgian instrument restricting anonymity-enhancing assets or transfers to self-hosted wallets

What this means for confidential transactions

Bubble is built for exactly this shape of obligation: amounts and balances live on chain as ciphertexts, computation happens without decryption, and the only disclosure path is an on-chain access list through which an authorized party - an auditor, a supervisor, a counterparty - can request scoped decryption. That is confidentiality from the public, not from the regulator.

Compliant by default.

See how selective disclosure satisfies a supervisor without publishing your book to the world.