In a significant move to tighten digital asset access, Belarus expanded its platform blocking in December, targeting exchanges and reinforcing the boundaries surrounding its High-Tech Park (HTP) for residents. This initiative reflects a broader regional strategy across Europe, the Middle East, and Africa (EMEA) as well as the Asia-Pacific (APAC) regions, where authorities are increasingly utilizing telecom blocklists, app-store removals, and Know Your Customer (KYC) regulations to control access to cryptocurrency exchanges.
Consequently, this shift can be characterized as a nuanced reintroduction of capital controls, albeit through digital means. Authorities are leveraging elements like passports, IP addresses, and local licenses to dictate which trading venues residents can access, as well as the associated costs for exiting the market. As part of this strategy, BelGIE, Belarus’s telecom registry, continues to add new domains to its list of restricted resources, impacting Internet Service Provider (ISP) levels of access. Recent local reports highlighted that the authorities have implemented blocks on various foreign exchange platforms, further tightening the legal framework that allows only HTP operators to engage in transactions with Belarusian citizens, while also restricting peer-to-peer (P2P) activities.
In conjunction with these domestic measures, the European Union’s latest sanctions will prohibit Belarusians from holding cryptocurrency wallets with EU providers as of February 24, 2025. This prohibition effectively removes a crucial avenue for Belarusian users to store their assets, forcing them to navigate through approved HTP operators or seek alternatives in less regulated channels. This enforcement strategy is straightforward and swift, employing DNS and IP blocks to redirect traffic at the carrier level while mobile access is curtailed through app store removals.
The contagion effect of such controls isn’t limited to Belarus; regional neighbors are showing similar patterns. For example, India escalated its crackdown on offshore cryptocurrency platforms on October 1, 2025, following notices issued to 25 Virtual Asset Service Providers (VASPs). These providers faced URL and app blocks for failing to register under Anti-Money Laundering (AML) rules, mirroring Belarus’s approach. Notably, Binance registered with India’s Financial Intelligence Unit earlier in 2024 and later incurred a substantial penalty, showcasing a trend where complying with local regulations can involve significant costs.
Other nations in the APAC region are also adopting stricter regulatory frameworks. Thailand formalized its restrictions on June 28, 2025, resulting in the blocking of several prominent exchanges for operating without local licenses. Indonesia is shifting its oversight structure to better regulate platforms, moving authority from Bappebti to the Financial Services Authority and Bank Indonesia, which will set the stage for more tightly controlled access routes.
These developments are altering the market structure, concentrating liquidity in compliant venues as access becomes increasingly restricted. As per Kaiko’s analysis, the depth of Bitcoin remains stable on well-regulated exchanges, while altcoin liquidity experienced declines earlier in the year. When jurisdictions impose restrictions like URL and app bans, markets typically experience short-term disruptions, leading to wider bid-ask spreads and increased trading costs, particularly on local fiat and stablecoin pairs.
Despite Belarus being relatively small in terms of global trading volumes, the local regulatory environment is significant for market dynamics. In practical terms, reduced access for local users can lead to diminished trading volumes, affecting market depth. If a substantial block restricts local trading activity, the response mechanism may cause a ripple effect, resulting in wider spreads and higher operational costs for those navigating the new landscape.
The emerging enforcement models across EMEA and APAC comprise three distinct approaches. Belarus and Thailand exhibit geo-blocking measures that cut access at the carrier level. In contrast, countries like Malaysia and Türkiye are opting for license requirements that foster regulated exchanges without resorting to outright bans. Meanwhile, India’s model of registrations combined with penalties serves to guide liquidity back into compliant pools.
Looking ahead to 2026, potential developments could see Belarus intensifying its internet blocks and further restricting P2P platforms. India may escalate its enforcement actions if existing notices do not lead to full compliance, and Thailand could broaden its restrictions to include wallet front-ends as authorities adapt to circumvent attempts to bypass existing barriers.
As these frameworks evolve, traders and market participants must navigate this intricate landscape. The need to understand access regulations by jurisdiction is paramount, as regional access restrictions can dramatically alter trading behavior and market efficiency. The sustainability of compliant strategies is crucial, given the potential volatility that arises from fragmented access and regulatory pressures.
In summary, the tightening of regulations across Belarus and its regional counterparts underscores a significant shift in the governance of digital asset transactions, where compliance increasingly dictates market share and operational viability. The evolving landscape invites a reconsideration of traditional trading strategies and necessitates robust mechanisms for managing risk and liquidity.
