A joint letter signed by 19 organisations, including CIWM, Green Alliance, and SUEZ, is calling on the Prime Minister to release the government’s Circular Economy Growth Plan.
The letter is coordinated by The Restart Project and signed by Green Alliance alongside Back Market, CIWM, musicMagpie, SUEZ, Wildlife and Countryside Link, Possible, Reloop, as well as other organisations.
“We are writing as businesses, NGOs and community groups to urge you to release the delayed Circular Economy Growth Plan as soon as possible,” the letter reads.
“This would bring major benefits for people around the UK and the UK economy. There is incredible political and public support for measures to keep our products in use for longer – repair, refurbishment and reuse in particular.”
Circular Online learned that the Department for the Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs (Defra) expected to publish the plan for consultation in early 2026. However, it haas yet to be published, and there is no indication of when it could arrive.
The letter concludes: “Since the General Election in July 2024, supported by the external expertise of the Circular Economy Taskforce, a huge and welcome amount of cross-government effort has been committed to the Circular Economy Growth Plan.”
“To now deliver the benefits of this work for businesses and the public, we urge you to publish the plan as soon as possible.”
Last year, the Scottish Government launched a consultation on its draft Circular Economy Strategy that sets out plans to increase reuse, repair and recycling rates.
Cryptocurrencies have emerged as a prominent innovation in the domain of digital finance in the last few years. You may have also noticed the transition of cryptocurrencies into a widely recognized asset class from being considered as speculative investments for a long time. The limelight on top crypto compliance frameworks is a proof of the fact that many countries and regulatory authorities believe that regulations are necessary in the cryptocurrency space.
The total capitalization of the global crypto market crossed the $4 trillion mark in 2025 and the number of active crypto users increased by 10 million (Source).
The 2026 Crypto Crime Report by Chainalysis shows that illicit crypto addresses received around $154 billion in 2025, which is significantly higher than the previous year (Source).
The Department of Justice imposed a penalty of more than $500 million on OKX for AML and KYC discrepancies (Source).
You can clearly see how the growing adoption of cryptocurrencies not only boosts the market but also facilitates crypto crimes. Crypto compliance frameworks help in ensuring safety from crypto crime alongside protecting crypto service providers from huge fines. Understanding the most notable crypto compliance frameworks across the world can help in creating effective compliance structures.
Unraveling the Top Crypto Compliance Frameworks Worldwide
The profound transformation of the global crypto industry is clearly visible in the rising use of cryptocurrencies in various sectors. Once considered as a volatile technology trend, cryptocurrencies have become a major strategic imperative for businesses all over the world. At the same time, you must also notice the rapid evolution of sanctions and AML compliance requirements.
Digital assets like cryptocurrencies have emerged as integral components of the global financial system. Therefore, regulators in different countries across the world have come up with frameworks to enhance scrutiny, enforcement, and supervision. You can use insights on crypto compliance frameworks from different countries to understand how cryptocurrencies are regulated globally.
1. United States
The most prominent jurisdiction where crypto compliance deserves the highest attention is the United States. You can search for answers to “What are the most common crypto compliance frameworks?” and find frameworks from the US at the top. The introduction of the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act in 2025 represents a promising initiative to ensure more regulatory certainty in crypto transactions.
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) are leading active efforts to define new compliance frameworks for tokenized assets and decentralized products.
On top of it, the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) is establishing global AML and CFT standards for cryptocurrencies. Most recently, the FATF has found significant discrepancies in implementation of its guidelines for digital assets and virtual asset service providers. Therefore, the FATF has turned its focus towards stronger enforcement and technologies that enhance anonymity like crypto mixers. The FATF also emphasizes the need for cross-border cooperation to achieve more comprehensive crypto compliance.
One of the significant improvements in the regulatory landscape for crypto in the US is the creation of a unified federal framework. The United States passed the GENIUS Act in July 2025 and included payment stablecoins within the scope of the Bank Secrecy Act or BSA. The GENIUS Act calls for comprehensive AML and sanctions compliance, focused on the following areas.
Transaction monitoring
Reporting suspicious activity
Customer due diligence
Office of Foreign Assets Control or OFAC screening
The best thing about the GENIUS Act is the inclusion of multiple agencies as the enforcement authorities. The Federal Reserve, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the US Treasury can enforce the guidelines of the GENIUS Act. On the other hand, the OFAC and the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network or FinCEN play crucial roles in imposing penalties and facilitating oversight.
FinCEN regulations imply that most of the crypto firms in the US fall under the category of Money Services Businesses. As Money Services Businesses or MSBs, crypto firms have to follow registration guidelines and comply with BSA and relevant regulations.
Cryptocurrency has achieved legal status throughout most of the European Union. However, individual member states have the final say in governance of crypto exchanges. You can find the ideal crypto compliance framework example in the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation or MiCA framework. The MiCA compliance framework was introduced in 2023 and has become a leading force for crypto compliance across the EU. It provides a unified framework for licensing, disclosure and consumer protection in the crypto space.
MiCA establishes robust compliance obligations for crypto asset service providers, focused on achieving stronger AML and CFT controls. The compliance obligations suggested by MiCA framework focus on the following areas,
Expanding the scope of KYC and due diligence checks
Reporting suspicious transactions
Enhancing transaction monitoring capabilities
All types of crypto asset service providers in the EU must get a valid license to operate within the law. As a result, the MiCA framework plays a vital role in ensuring the participation of only well-regulated and compliant entities in the crypto market.
The launch of the new Anti-Money Laundering Authority or AMLA in July 2025 also introduced a huge improvement in crypto compliance in the EU. AMLA clearly establishes that firms interacting with crypto assets in the EU should have strong safeguards against terrorism financing and money laundering. On top of it, the proposed EU Single Rulebook for AML and CFT is likely to unify AML regulations. It can also introduce significant improvements in cooperation among financial intelligence units for all crypto-related activities in the EU.
3. United Kingdom
The United Kingdom has been one of the frontrunners among jurisdictions vying for effective crypto compliance frameworks. Since January 2020, all crypto businesses in the UK have to register with the Financial Conduct Authority or FCA, according to the Money Laundering Regulations 2017. Despite being one of the best crypto compliance frameworks, the FCA has plans to introduce a new crypto asset authorization gateway to improve the framework.
Firms that wish to engage in newly defined crypto asset activities will have to obtain authorization from the FCA. The applications are validated within the scope of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. Crypto asset service providers with the appropriate permissions in place can operate seamlessly in the UK when the new regime begins in October 2027.
It is also important to note that crypto exchanges and custodial wallet providers in the UK must follow the reporting requirements recommended by the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation or OFSI. Crypto asset service providers should provide notifications to OFSI when they suspect financial sanction breaches or detect sanctioned individuals.
Discover the strategic path to crypto expertise with the Certified Cryptocurrency Professional (CCP) Certification and start your journey by mastering the essentials: blockchain, Bitcoin, altcoins, and real-world crypto applications.
4. Progressive Compliance Frameworks for Crypto
You will also come across many crypto compliance frameworks that follow a proactive and progressive approach towards crypto assets. Canada is one of the best examples of countries with progressive compliance frameworks. The Canadian Securities Administrators and the Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada imply that crypto trading platforms should register with provincial regulators. All crypto investment firms in Canada must register with the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada.
Japan is also another notable mention among countries with progressive compliance frameworks for cryptocurrencies. The Payment Services Act of Japan calls for crypto exchange to register with the Financial Services Agency. Japan considers cryptocurrencies as legal property, and regulators have been exploring tax reforms to ease the burden on crypto businesses.
Final Thoughts
The insights on top crypto compliance frameworks across notable jurisdictions reveal that the crypto compliance landscape is still evolving. You will still not find a unified regulatory framework for crypto compliance all over the world. On the other hand, compliance frameworks like MiCA, the GENIUS Act and the Clarity Act provide blueprints to create new and more effective frameworks. Governments all over the world are no longer worried about approaches for crypto regulation and have implemented relevant rules. However, major economies have shown growing oversight in ensuring crypto compliance. Learn more about crypto compliance best practices now.
*Disclaimer: The article should not be taken as, and is not intended to provide any investment advice. Claims made in this article do not constitute investment advice and should not be taken as such. 101 Blockchains shall not be responsible for any loss sustained by any person who relies on this article. Do your own research!
Peter Davies-Dennis identifies the systemic barriers in the way of a circular economy transition.
What would a circular economy mean in practice? Less waste, a healthier planet and environment, and a stronger economy. Given these potential benefits, the question must be: why hasn’t society shifted to a circular model already?
Ahead of this year’s ISWA World Congress, held in London, Circular Online has examined what the answer could be.
Sustainable development vs Capitalism
In a capitalist system, growth is king. The trade-off to sustain that growth is unsustainable levels of consumption. Things are designed to be made, thrown away, and replaced. Take, make, throw.
This is a linear model of consumption: a straight line on a graph that is only ever rising, in theory.
For a long time, many experts felt that sustainable development and a capitalist system were incompatible. The solution was a different political and economic model, or, at the very least, policy intervention that requires businesses to prioritise sustainability over profit.
“The circular economy effectively changes how we consume – in many ways, moving us from consumers to users,” Hubbard says.
This was a view shared by Wayne Hubbard, CEO of ReLondon, until he discovered the concept of the circular economy as a student.
“The old notion of sustainable development seems to me to be one of making the best use of resources, in other words, making things last a bit longer and reducing consumption, which means citizens, especially those in the global south, have to make do with less – but capitalism as we know it depends upon the creation of demand for stuff,” Hubbard told Circular Online.
“The circular economy effectively changes how we consume – in many ways, moving us from consumers to users.”
A circular economy is ‘regenerative by design’, Hubbard explained. This is because the core business models, such as reuse, repair, refurbish, remanufacture, and repurpose, are not extractive (linear); they’re circular.
However, these models are not only about reducing waste and consumption, but they have all been successfully monetised – increasingly by some of the largest brands, with the biggest market share, globally.
Circularity also protects the economy from geopolitical and climate-related shocks, Hubbard told us, by significantly reducing the impact of fragile supply chains.
However, well-documented ‘linear lock-ins’ are significant barriers to moving towards a circular model. These range from our finance system to existing infrastructure; ingrained structures that form the global economy.
Hubbard argues that while this is a significant barrier, there is the potential for communities to deploy and adopt circular strategies locally.
“So while national and international governmental organisations consider these problems, local government and local communities can crack on – delivering green jobs, economic growth and resilience and helping to alleviate the cost of living crisis.”
Adopting these circular principles at a local level requires buy-in from the general public, so the question is: do they want change?
What actually is people’s attitude to waste?
For people whose job it is to reduce waste, often the mistake they make is assuming the general public cares about waste as much as they do.
How many people interact with waste begins and ends with their kerbside waste collections.
“People just need to know what goes in which bin and when to put it out,” Bates says.
“It’s long been the case that waste management enthuses those who work in it to the point where we assume everyone else is as interested as we are. They’re not,” Stephen Bates, Founder and Director at The Mobius Agency, told us.
“People just need to know what goes in which bin and when to put it out. Too often, services are designed to suit the operator rather than the user, which only widens the gap.”
Bates, who is Chair of CIWM’s Behaviour Change SEG, said the focus must be placed on user needs. While waste management has constraints, he argues that starting with the user will always lead to better-aligned services.
“We’re currently working with the government of Barbados on introducing kerbside recycling for the first time,” Bates said.
“As a smaller country, public services are more visible and tangible. We’ve invested significant time in understanding expectations, not just around recycling, but waste more broadly.”
The strategy and communications plan were built from the user’s perspective, Bates explained.
“Testing shows this approach has generated not just acceptance of the service, but real demand for it. If you can create demand, you’re more than halfway there.”
Ultimately, the factors that most influence public support, Bates argues, are respect for policies, trust in the institutions delivering them, and the quality of the services themselves.
“People need to understand the reasons behind policies and believe in them. Trust and service quality are closely linked; the latter drives the former.”
“That’s why service providers must focus on delivering consistently high-quality services. Failing to do so risks undermining trust and eroding any support built through policy or communication efforts.”
Why can’t governments reach a consensus?
One of the most ambitious examples of political negotiations in recent years has been the UN’s Global Plastic Treaty.
But, so far, these talks have failed. Negotiations have collapsed multiple times, and countries are no closer to finding a consensus on plastic.
In many ways, the reasons why these talks have failed are a demonstration of how big ‘linear lock-ins’ are as barriers to change. However, these barriers don’t expose finance or infrastructure issues, but the convergence of diametrically opposed geopolitical goals.
A recent report found the Plastic Treaty process risks failing without significant reform.
Thais Vojvodic, Director of Partnerships at Common Seas, said that the UK-based non-profit had ‘repeatedly observed’ a small minority of petrostates using the rule of consensus to block progress.
“The Chair’s intent to move to a simplified ‘Chair’s Text’ can be a valuable tool for diplomatic speed,” Vojvodic told Circular Online.
“But, if it removes ambitious upstream measures, such as legally-binding production caps, the result could be a treaty that only manages the most obvious symptoms of plastic pollution without tackling the root cause.”
The root cause, Vojvodic says, is plastic production.
“If production is not capped, the world will overflow with plastic that no recycling system can ever keep up with – harming our ecosystems, economies and health in the process,” she said.
Oil-producing nations view these discussions as existential; they’re not focused on reducing waste or discussing an alternative circular economy model. Their priority is profit and power.
“Oil-producing nations and petrochemical lobbyists have been framing the crisis as a ‘waste management’ issue rather than a systemic issue – attempting to sidetrack the important matter of plastic production,” Vojvodic told Circular Online.
“By now, we know that this is not enough: plastic production is on track to triple by 2060 without intervention, and less than 10% is recycled globally.”
To achieve a Global Plastics Treaty that addresses plastic production, Vojvodic argues that ‘ambitious countries must hold the line’ and find a way to achieve a treaty ‘guided not by compromise in the interest of consensus, but common sense in the interest of a just and sustainable shared future’.
Is it possible to overcome the barriers?
Everyone will have an experience of trying to change something. It’s common that, even when this change is demonstrably for the best, there will be resistance.
This could come in many forms: it’s too difficult, we can’t afford it, maybe in future, but not right now. Sometimes these objections will be fair; others may be more cynical. Whatever the case, these are barriers that must be overcome.
That way, society can transition to a circular model that reduces waste and supports the environment, without sacrificing economic growth.
Join the conversation at ISWA 2026
These questions, and the systems shaping the answers, will take centre stage at the ISWA World Congress 2026, taking place in London from 9–11 November.
Bringing together thousands of professionals, policymakers and industry leaders, the Congress will explore the strategies, technologies and policies driving real-world progress at a pivotal moment for the sector.
Hosted at the QEII Centre in Westminster, the event marks the return of the Congress to the UK for the first time in over 30 years, offering a unique platform to share insight, challenge assumptions and shape the future of resource management.
‘World’s first’ pilot facility converting waste plastic to Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) opens in Kent.
The pilot facility, which is operated by Clean Planet Technologies, is dedicated to converting hard-to-recycle waste plastics into SAF.
The facility is set up to research and develop new technologies that can deal with non-recyclable plastic waste.
Known as the Sustainability Innovation Centre, the facility is set up to research and develop new technologies that can deal with non-recyclable plastic waste, beginning with conversion into jet fuel.
Clean Planet Technologies says the pilot has financial support in place from the Department for Transport-funded UK SAF Clearing House.
Commenting on the facility, Dr Andrew Odjo, Chief Executive Officer at Clean Planet Technologies, said: “Our process first heats the waste plastic with a chemical reaction to turn it into a liquid, rather than burning it.”
“This is then treated with our patented process to remove impurities and create SAF that meets stringent commercial aviation specifications.”
As part of the process, waste plastics are pre-processed and shredded to a uniform size before being fed into one of the centre’s two pyrolysis units. Clean Planet Technologies says the largest unit is capable of processing up to one tonne of plastic per day.
The fundamentals of the process (pyrolysis, purification, distillation and hydroprocessing) are all technologies which are currently used independently at commercial scale.
Dr Katerina Garyfalou, Chief Operating Officer at Clean Planet Technologies, commented: “The Sustainability Innovation Centre is set up to demonstrate our patented waste-plastics-to-SAF process at pilot scale, supporting fuel testing, validation and progression.”
Giuseppe Landolfo, CFO at i-Foria, explains how Europe is closing one of its most overlooked waste loops: nappies.
When we talk about the circular economy, attention typically turns to steel, concrete, timber or energy; rarely does the conversation begin with nappies.
Yet absorbent hygiene products (AHPs), including disposable nappies, sanitary pads and incontinence products, represent one of Europe’s most persistent and problematic waste streams, accounting for around 4–7% of municipal solid waste. Every year in Italy alone, enough AHP waste is landfilled to fill, close and replace three entire landfill sites.
Until recently, these products were widely considered impossible to recycle. Made from complex layers of plastics, cellulose fibres and superabsorbent polymers, and contaminated after use, AHPs have sat firmly at the end of a linear model: manufacture, consume, dispose. That assumption is now being challenged.
In July 2025, a new recycling demonstration facility opened in Spresiano, Veneto, marking a global first: a plant capable of recovering high-quality secondary raw materials from used absorbent hygiene products.
Powered by proprietary technology developed by Italian clean-tech company i-Foria and supported by the EU-funded ICARUS project, the facility represents more than a technical breakthrough. It signals what a truly circular construction ecosystem could look like when innovation, policy and infrastructure begin to align.
Turning the unrecyclable into a resource
The Spresiano demonstration plant operates at a pre-industrial scale, processing around 100 kilograms of AHP waste per batch.
The Spresiano demonstration plant operates at a pre-industrial scale, processing around 100 kilograms of AHP waste per batch. The plant demonstrates that nappies and other hygiene products can be sterilised, separated and transformed into materials suitable for reuse under Italy’s strict End-of-Waste criteria, using a process designed for low energy consumption and high efficiency.
The process begins with controlled collection. Used products undergo thermo-mechanical treatment and sterilisation, addressing one of the central barriers to AHP recycling: biological contamination. The material is then separated into two high-value outputs (plastics, absorbent material), each assessed for quality and reuse potential.
What emerges defies expectations. The plastics recovered from AHPs are notably high grade, retaining performance characteristics originally designed to be thin, flexible and skin-safe. Once granulated, they can be reintegrated into manufacturing streams for products ranging from urban furniture and playground components to clothes hangers.
The cellulose fraction is equally compelling. Unlike wood-based pulp, AHP cellulose is largely lignin-free, soft and high-purity, having been designed to sit against human skin. These characteristics make it well-suited for construction applications such as insulation panels, construction fillers and composite materials – sectors urgently seeking lower-carbon and bio-based inputs.
Each tonne of recycled AHP material displaces virgin pulp and fossil-based plastics, cutting carbon emissions while reducing pressure on forests and non-renewable resources. This is not downcycling. It is high-value circular recovery.
Construction’s circular blind spot
The relevance to the built environment is hard to overstate. Construction remains one of Europe’s least circular sectors. Across the EU, it accounts for close to 40% of total carbon emissions and generates nearly one-third of all waste. Yet only around 40% of construction and demolition waste is successfully reused or recycled, and much of that is downcycled into lower-grade applications.
In 2024, the EU’s construction sector recorded a circular material use rate of just 12%, highlighting how early the transition still is. Against this backdrop, alternative secondary raw materials are no longer a niche interest but a strategic necessity.
Rising material costs, supply chain volatility and declining natural resources are forcing the industry to rethink where materials come from – and what counts as ‘waste’. This is where initiatives such as ICARUS come into focus.
ICARUS: Closing loops across sectors
ICARUS concept diagram.
Funded under the Horizon Europe programme and led by ACCIONA’s Construction business, ICARUS brings together 18 partners from seven European countries, including Belgium, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Germany, France and the Netherlands. Its ambition is to transform industrial and urban waste streams into high-quality secondary raw materials for use in construction, mobility, energy and manufacturing.
The Spresiano facility forms a critical part of this vision. Beyond AHP recycling, the plant is also being used to validate the recovery and upcycling of cellulosic materials extracted from urban wastewater treatment plants operated by ACCIONA Water Business. Traditionally disposed of as sludge, these fibres are now being processed for high-value applications across construction, chemical and technological sectors.
To support consistency and scalability, ICARUS is integrating AI-powered digital platforms to optimise operations, monitor material quality and improve process efficiency. The aim is not only to recover materials, but to recover them at standards that allow seamless reintegration into industrial supply chains.
This focus on quality is essential. For circular construction to scale, secondary raw materials must meet the same technical and regulatory requirements as virgin inputs. Anything less risks locking recycled materials into low-value niches.
A nappy problem hiding in plain sight
The potential impact extends far beyond Italy. Disposable nappies are an unavoidable part of modern life. Around 95% of families in developed countries rely on them, with each child using between 4,000 and 6,000 nappies before being potty trained. Globally, more than 300,000 disposable nappies are sent to landfill or incineration every minute.
The environmental cost is staggering. According to the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, the disposable nappy industry consumes over 248 million barrels of crude oil every year. Most nappies take between 150 and 500 years to decompose.
In regions without robust waste infrastructure, the problem becomes visible and acute. Nappies account for a significant share of plastic pollution in waterways, from Southeast Asia to West Africa, where fishers regularly report diapers floating out to sea.
Yet alternatives remain limited. Bio-based disposable nappies are expensive, while reusable cloth nappies require access to clean water, laundry facilities and time – resources that are not always available, particularly for new parents.
For decades, recycling was dismissed as technically unfeasible. The mixed materials, the bonding methods, and the biological contamination all posed formidable barriers. i-Foria’s innovation lies in showing that those barriers are no longer insurmountable.
Policy, markets and the missing middle
Europe’s policy landscape is beginning to catch up. The forthcoming EU Circular Economy Act, expected in 2026, aims to establish a true Single Market for secondary raw materials by stimulating both supply and demand for high-quality recycled inputs. The goal is to double the EU’s circularity rate from around 12% to 24% by 2030 – a shift expected to create hundreds of thousands of jobs and unlock significant investment.
Yet technology alone is not enough. One of the challenges facing AHP recycling is what happens after the bin is emptied. In Italy, around 20 million citizens are already served by separate diaper collection schemes. In municipalities with effective door-to-door systems, nappies are already being sorted – only to be sent, paradoxically, to incineration or landfill due to the absence of suitable recycling infrastructure.
The Spresiano plant addresses this missing middle. It demonstrates how separately collected AHP waste can be transformed into industrial feedstock rather than treated as an expensive disposal problem.
The next step is scale. i-Foria plans to develop a semi-industrial module operating on continuous feed, capable of processing one to two tonnes of AHP waste per day. Backed by a mix of public and private investment, the objective is to prove economic viability at scale and support replication across Europe.
Building with tomorrow’s waste
For the construction sector, the implications are profound. Recovered cellulose fibres can displace virgin materials in insulation, panels and composites. Recycled AHP plastics can re-enter durable applications. Wastewater cellulose can open up entirely new bio-based material pathways.
More importantly, projects like ICARUS point towards a construction industry that no longer sees waste management as someone else’s problem. Instead, waste becomes a shared resource pool – one that spans municipal services, manufacturing, water utilities and construction.
From a circular economy perspective, this is what maturity looks like: not isolated recycling initiatives, but integrated value chains where materials flow across sectors, enabled by technology, standards and collaboration.
Few would have predicted that disposable nappies might one day help insulate homes or reduce reliance on virgin plastics. But as Europe grapples with climate targets, resource constraints and mounting waste, the question is no longer whether such transformations are possible.
The technology exists. The waste exists. The demand exists.
What comes next is a choice – an opportunity – to build a construction economy from materials we once threw away.
The digital asset ecosystem is evolving beyond cryptocurrencies with the addition of new digital assets. You can find enterprises discussing about possible ways to adopt tokenization, stablecoins and the potential of CBDCs for business. At the same time, digital assets AML & KYC requirements have also come under the limelight for obvious reasons. The world of digital assets is no longer similar to the ‘Wild West’ where anything is permitted and accountability is at the lowest.
More than 75% of institutional investors have been thinking about increasing digital asset exposure in 2026 (Source).
Another study has revealed that almost 75% of organizations participating in it are not prepared to manage digital asset compliance (Source).
The 2026 Crypto Crime Report by Chainalysis states that illicit crypto addresses received almost $154 billion in 2025 (Source).
The state of digital asset compliance in 2026 will be a focal point of discussion for institutions which want to adopt digital assets. However, the lack of institutional preparedness for digital asset compliance is clearly evident in the growing volume of discrepancies in digital asset usage. What do you think is the primary reason for rising amount of funds flowing into illicit addresses? You must learn about the significance of KYC and AML in the digital asset landscape to ensure legally compliant use of digital assets.
The Rise in Emphasis on Digital Asset Compliance
If you would have asked about digital assets a few years ago, the most likely responses will have pointed at cryptocurrencies. The digital asset landscape now involves stablecoins, CBDCs and real-world asset or RWA tokens. How are organizations supposed to embrace these digital assets while staying within the limits of law? The year 2025 brought many digital asset disputes worldwide with regulators debating over complexities in the crypto and digital asset space.
The past year witnessed significant improvements in regulation of digital assets, especially in the US and European Union. New laws and frameworks defined ownership rights, established clear regulatory boundaries and tested traditional laws against new technologies. Therefore, businesses looking forward to the use of digital assets securities will have to prioritize compliance now more than ever.
It is high time that organizations should think of Know Your Customer (KYC) and Anti-Money Laundering (AML) checks as the core elements of digital asset strategy. Virtual asset service providers and financial institutions should understand the nuances of KYC and AML compliance not only to avoid fines but also to achieve seamless integration of digital assets.
The dynamic and rapidly evolving digital asset space requires KYC and AML compliance not as regulatory obligations but as essential drivers of trust and security. Business leaders should understand the core elements of KYC and AML strategy to capitalize on the potential of digital assets.
How Can You Achieve Effective KYC Compliance for Digital Assets?
KYC or Know Your Customer is a common term you must have come across in the traditional banking and financial services sector. It is a simple process to verify the identity of users and ensure that users are exactly what they claim to be. The scope of digital assets KYC in 2026 is not limited to static systems where you upload government-issued IDs. You will have to rely on a dynamic and multi-layered system with multiple components to create an effective KYC system for digital assets.
Customer Identification
The first step in KYC focuses on collecting personally identifiable information, including full name, address and date of birth of customers. It is also important to understand that the growing use of synthetic identities and deepfakes creates limitations in customer identification. Therefore, you have to rely on solutions like live biometric detection and government-backed digital ID wallets to avoid registering fake customer IDs.
Enhanced Due Diligence
One of the most crucial components of any KYC strategy is standard due diligence for every customer. Standard customer due diligence revolves around evaluating the risk level of customers on the basis of their source of wealth, location and transaction patterns. In the case of high-risk individuals, you will have to rely on enhanced due diligence, particularly for customers from jurisdictions under increased monitoring. You can conduct enhanced due diligence with careful analysis of the previous wallet interactions of users.
Perpetual KYC
The digital asset landscape is evolving and so are risk patterns. Therefore, it is practically inefficient to consider KYC as a one-time event in digital asset compliance. You will notice a significant shift in 2026 with the requirement for perpetual KYC that helps in real-time updates in risk profiles. Perpetual KYC calls for real-time updates in risk profiles of customers according to specific events, such as change in login patterns of users or sudden changes in transaction volume.
Accelerate your crypto career with the world’s only accredited Cryptocurrency Certification, and master the skills that set you apart in the fast-evolving digital asset landscape.
What are the Effective AML Mechanisms for Digital Assets?
The utility of KYC in the digital assets space primarily revolves around verifying customer identity. On the other hand, digital assets AML compliance focuses on monitoring transactions for suspicious activity. The key to achieve successful AML verification for digital assets revolves around transparency into transactions. You can rely on diverse techniques to strengthen your AML strategy for digital asset adoption.
Monitoring Transactions
The scope of monitoring in transactions is limited only to the ledger of the bank. You will have to use specialized monitoring tools to analyze the complete history of digital assets. Robust transaction monitoring tools can help in identifying and reporting illicit transactions involving digital assets.
Sanctions Screening
The volatility of the geopolitical landscape in 2026 calls for real-time screening against EU and UN sanction lists. You will witness these sanctions calling for screening certain wallet addresses that are linked to state-sponsored criminal groups or sanctioned entities.
Suspicious Activity Reporting
Digital asset service providers cannot deny the significance of reporting in the fight against malicious transactions. VASPs have to file suspicious activity reports according to guidelines established by authorities in specific jurisdictions. In the United States, service providers must file reports for suspicious activity with FinCEN, a national financial intelligence authority.
Identifying Challenges for Digital Asset KYC and AML
The domain of digital assets is probably one of the most complex spaces for AML and KYC in 2026. It is important to understand digital assets AML & KYC requirements and the challenges to establish robust digital asset compliance.
Unhosted Wallets
Regulators are worried about the rising number of peer-to-peer transactions with private wallets. In certain jurisdictions, such as the EU and UK, virtual asset service providers must verify the ownership of unhosted wallets before authorizing transfers. The recommended method for proving wallet ownership is a digital signature or a Satoshi test that involves sending a micro transaction.
Decentralized Finance
Most of the DeFi platforms come with a centralized governance board and fall in the category of virtual asset service providers. As a result, you can notice a rise in number of KYC-gated pools in which institutional users only have the privilege to interact with other verified participants.
Regulation of Stablecoins
Stablecoins were the big culprits in the massive amount of crypto transfers to illicit addresses in 2025. New regulations in 2026 have imposed the requirement for ‘smart contract level’ controls for stablecoin issuers. The issuers should have the technical resources to freeze or burn stablecoins at the request of regulatory authorities. It clearly suggests that stablecoins will gradually become more permissioned assets than native assets, such as Bitcoin.
Introduction of New Solutions for Digital Asset Compliance
The challenges for digital asset compliance continue to gain more attention as digital asset adoption grows bigger. Businesses must focus on digital assets KYC and AML compliance as a strategic priority instead of viewing it as a checkbox. The use of zero-knowledge proofs and self-sovereign identity provide new avenues to address compliance needs while preserving user privacy. AI-powered blockchain analytics can also create better opportunities to enhance KYC and AML compliance in digital asset initiatives.
Final Thoughts
Compliance is no longer a trivial addition to the checklist for any business trying to adopt digital assets. KYC and AML compliance for digital assets is a source of competitive advantage in the modern business landscape. Businesses that can navigate the intricacies of KYC and AML requirements for digital assets can earn the trust of users. Multi-layered and dynamic systems for KYC and AML verification of digital asset projects will define the future of digital assets. Learn more about digital asset compliance and its benefits now.
A flat rate 20p deposit will apply to all drink containers in scope of the UK’s Deposit Return Scheme when it launches next year.
Anyone purchasing single-use PET plastic, steel and aluminium drinks containers between 150ml and 3 litres will pay the 20p fee at the point of purchase, which is refundable when the empty container is returned at an approved return point.
Exchange for Change, the not-for-profit, industry-led organisation operating the scheme in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland, said the fee was a sufficient behavioural incentive, simple to understand, and workable for producers and retailers.
The confirmation of the 20p deposit came after a consultation with industry and economic analysts, as well as studies on the deposit levels in DRS systems globally.
The analysis included behavioural market research to test consumer response to deposit levels ranging from 10p to 30p.
Exchange for Change said it found that deposit levels below 15p are unlikely to provide ‘sufficient incentive’ to help achieve the 90% return rate target over three years. However, it also found that a 30p level could result in a ‘disproportionate consumer cost exposure’.
The analysis also considered the potential of applying a variable deposit value depending on the size of container or material but found this often results in consistently lower return rates on smaller containers.
Russell Davies, Exchange for Change of CEO, said: “The deposit value is a pivotal part of how the DRS will work in practice. That’s why we’ve engaged widely with industry, undertaken extensive market research and in-depth analysis on how schemes work in other countries.”
“Confirming this now, with just under 18 months to go until the DRS is live, will help producers and retailers with their planning and preparation for the scheme, and we will continue to support them closely throughout this process.”
Commenting on the announcement, Travis Way, managing director at EcoVend, called confirmation of a flat 20p deposit a ‘helpful step forward’ for businesses.
“A flat rate also brings practical benefits for businesses by simplifying implementation, reducing administrative complexity and supporting more consistent system design across retailers, producers and return operators,” Way continued.
“A simple, uniform deposit should also support consumer understanding and mirror other well-established European schemes.”
What impact will the Circularity in Practice project have? Inspired by King Charles III’s lifelong commitment to the environment, Circular Online examines this new initiative and its potential to reshape sustainable practice.
Circularity in Practice is a voluntary initiative inspired by His Majesty The King’s life-long interest in environmental stewardship.
Signatories commit to collaborate and adopt practical, circular approaches in their everyday operations.
There are 86 official signatories so far, with around 150 businesses attending the launch event at SUEZ’s repair hub in Greater Manchester.
Dr Adam Read MBE, Chief Sustainability & External Affairs Officer at SUEZ UK, told Circular Online the initiative is about building momentum.
“We have been seeing a growing trend in the last 12 months in our commercial customers wanting to donate unused or good quality but unwanted items from their supply chain to good causes to not only improve their environmental KPIs but to demonstrate their commitment to community engagement and social benefit,” he explained.
Dr Read continued that the private sector has significant influence over its own supply chain and competitors, so can make substantial in-roads into developing more circular solutions.
Circular Economy Institute: Why is the initiative important
Amongst the signatories is the Circular Economy Institute (CEI), which provides expert training and certification to equip professionals and entrepreneurs with knowledge to integrate circular principles in their organisations.
The Circular Economy Institute is also working to build professional expertise in this space, offering membership and training for practitioners driving the transition.
Katie Cockburn, Senior Director of Policy Media and Education at CEI, said they were proud to be signing up to the initiative.
“It reinforces our commitment to supporting our members in translating circular principles into practical, measurable outcomes,” Cockburn told Circular Online.
“At CEI, we recognise that the transition to a circular economy depends not only on ambition, but on the capability, leadership and collaboration of skilled professionals working across sectors.”
“By signing, we are underlining our role in setting standards, sharing best practice, and enabling our community to drive meaningful change in their organisations and beyond.”
“We believe that putting circularity into practice is essential to delivering lasting environmental and economic value, and we are committed to equipping our members with the tools, knowledge and networks they need to lead this transition with confidence and impact.”
Dispelling myths around the circular economy
150 businesses attended the launch event at SUEZ’s repair hub in Greater Manchester.
SUEZ have been involved in discussions around the initiative from the beginning and helped to plan how to share examples of best practice.
Sharing these examples, along with toolkits and guidance, is part of a strategy to get more businesses on board and dispel myths around the circular economy.
Dr Read explained that some of the most common barriers to businesses adopting circular principles are the perception of cost, such as thinking pre-loved items and reclaimed materials are more expensive to handle and use.
“For other businesses it is the time needed to investigate alternative solutions to their traditional ones they have been set up to access over many years, and a lack of resources (staff and time) to dedicate to investigating the options out there,” he continued.
“There may have been some experiences with early adopters of more circular solutions that didn’t work or produced an inferior product or service, just like the early days of recycled paper.”
“We need time to work through these experiences and to demonstrate that the current examples are not only fit for purpose but bring huge additional benefits too.”
“And that’s why the Circularity in Practice initiative is so necessary right now, to dispel these myths, showcase great examples and build a new positive dynamic around design for reuse, refurb and upcycling.”
Why does the initiative focus on the built environment?
A key focus of the initiative is on the built environment, which Dr Read explained can often be an ‘untapped mine of value and materials’.
He explained that ‘given the right nudge, profile and support could make significant progress on reducing carbon, reducing resource consumption and delivering green jobs and economic benefits’.
“As a group of founding partners we all felt this was the sweet spot that we could shine a light on, draw attention to and make real progress on outside of any legislative reform or whilst waiting for the Circular Economy Growth Plan – and the initial responses by businesses of all shapes and sizes up and down the country is really positive, so I guess we picked the right materials to focus on!”
There are many examples of circularity being applied in practice that demonstrate how it is commercially viable, many of which are from companies operating in the built environment.
“The refitting of office buildings is a great example of how secondary or reclaimed materials can be utilised to bring character and style to the work environment at the right price point, whilst recognising the obvious environmental benefits and the local social value impacts, like jobs and training, etc.”
“The more we can build sustainable design into new buildings the easier it will be to deconstruct, dismantle, harvest, capture and reuse the materials, such as piping, building materials, and flooring.”
“We have been developing unique offers and services in this space and believe that the Circularity in Practice Initiative will open up many more productive conversations about specific materials and situations that collaboratively we could solve.”
Jessica Bradley examines how traditional construction must evolve to design and build infrastructure for a circular economy transition.
The built environment has a big role to play in addressing the challenge of the climate emergency, not least because the design of buildings and infrastructure can optimise the types of materials that will be locked away for decades.
Extracting, manufacturing and producing materials generates around 45% of global greenhouse gas emissions, and moving to renewables can only address half of these emissions.
The design of infrastructure determines its longevity and the overall needs for materials through the lifecycle. As such, infrastructure is a huge component of the circular economy and its logistics, including waste management, material storage and redistribution, modular construction facilities and adaptive reuse of existing buildings.
But how, exactly, can infrastructure be designed for circularity from the outset?
Circular principles can be embedded into infrastructure planning and delivery by moving beyond traditional construction models and toward systems that prioritise longevity, adaptability, material transparency and whole-life value.
Traditional infrastructure models are incompatible with circular ambitions for numerous reasons, including supply chain vulnerability – a growing issue for contractors and developers.
Relying on virgin materials makes the sector vulnerable to price fluctuations, whereas circular procurement, material recovery infrastructure and local reuse networks can reduce these risks by shortening supply chains and keeping material value local.
What does circular infrastructure look like?
The Circular Economy Institute (CEI) is also working to build professional expertise in this space, offering membership and training for practitioners driving the transition.
Moving beyond traditional infrastructure models is a relatively modest job, says Paul Ekins, professor of resources and environmental policy at UCL Institute for Sustainable Resources and deputy chair of the Circular Economy Taskforce.
“Circularity is basically keeping materials in circulation for longer, which is to do with design,” he says. “So many of the characteristics of materials that will allow them to stay in circulation are decided at the design stage, and you don’t need huge infrastructure for that.”
When designing circular infrastructure, the aim is to source fewer and better quality raw materials and to use resources to favour positive environmental and social outcomes.
Circular infrastructure also includes modifying existing infrastructure to achieve greater resource efficiency, says sustainability assessment method BREEAM, as well as designing infrastructure assets for material recovery, adaptability and lifecycle optimisation, using principles of reversible design and design for disassembly/deconstruction.
BREEAM emphasises the provision of digital information on construction products, including material passports, to improve access to material and component data to help facilitate reuse and recycling.
Material passports record details of the installation, which can help with the maintenance and dismantling of a building. Alongside this, materials banks will also form a significant piece of the puzzle, experts say. However, it’s argued that the lack of standardisation for the management of material banks is a hurdle.
There are many distinctions between buildings and infrastructure, and while with buildings, you can look to reuse materials, infrastructure is usually quite specific.
This means it’s important to maintain infrastructure properly, says Catherine De Wolf, assistant professor at the Department of Civil, Environmental and Geomatic Engineering at ETH Zürich.
“A lot of infrastructure needs demolishing because it didn’t get maintained properly, so we have to look at how do we monitor infrastructure to repair and replace things on time,” she says.
This is referred to as ‘slowing the loop’ – a circular strategy that allows infrastructure to be in use for longer.
Several other circular strategies can be used for infrastructure, including ‘narrowing the loop’, which uses fewer materials to build something, and regenerating the loop, which means building something that improves the environment, by using carbon-capturing materials, for example.
However, while there is a lot of research being done on these strategies, there is a lack of drawing on this research, De Wolf says.
“I’m not sure how much, in practice, these experts are listened to,” says De Wolf.
The answer, she says, is collaborations between policymakers and researchers.
“Lifecycle assessments are such a complex topic, and there’s a lot of greenwashing from companies,” she says. “To be sure you’re really doing something better for the environment, it’s good to work with academic researchers.”
“But it’s also the job of researchers to reach out to practice and policymakers, to disseminate research outside of academic papers.”
Moving beyond traditional infrastructure models is a relatively modest job, says Paul Ekins, professor at UCL.
Taking advantage of the opportunities for infrastructure in a circular economy will require significant global systemic change and technological innovation, the Global Infrastructure Hub believes.
In a thought piece, it argues that policymakers can drive the transition to the circular economy by forming a common strategy with objectives that drive policy, regulation, procurement and financing of infrastructure.
More locally, town and land use planning can also play a role in promoting circular building, via circular public procurement models, by enabling circular economy principles in construction and defining material solutions, argues European climate agency Climate KIC.
Edkins visited car manufacturer JLR last year, and heard how it was now optimising the disassembly of vehicles at the end of their life to reuse the parts, after spending 40 years optimising the assembly of vehicles from component parts.
“I think we’re going to see much more of that if the government puts in the right incentives and regulations,” he says.
Barriers and risks
There are many commercial risks and barriers to implementing circular principles, Bradley writes.
There are many commercial risks and barriers to implementing circular principles. One reason manufacturers and other businesses are slow to take up circular economy principles is because they can’t yet make a profit from it, says Edkins.
“Subsidy has some role to play in building up infrastructure,” he says. “But once the infrastructure is there and a company still can’t remain financially viable, it will close, which is precisely what we’re seeing with plastic recycling facilities.”
The lack of economic incentives is making it increasingly difficult for companies to pursue circular principles, even where the ambition is there, says Anika Buchmaier, senior consultant at Buro Happold.
“There needs to be a rethink around the value of reused materials,” says Buchmaier, who has heard discussions among experts about how the value of new material should be lower than reused materials.
However, because infrastructure is often publicly owned, the short-termism of politics is often a barrier to long-term thinking around circularity, De Wolf says.
“Usually, politicians are elected every four to five years, and the repair of a bridge is not as exciting to get people to vote for you as building a new bridge. Sometimes, political interests aren’t aligned with circular interests.”
There are also several practical difficulties faced by developers wanting to incorporate used materials, Buchmaier says.
London has opened a couple of urban mining hubs – where materials can be recovered and reintroduced into the supply chain, including Marks Barfield Architects’ Urban Mining Tondo, which stores dismantled reusable materials from buildings in municipal material centres.
But not having enough of these hubs is a challenge, because there might be a wide span of time between deconstruction and reusing materials, says Buchmaier.
“Often, there’s no space for a developer wanting to store materials from something they’ve deconstructed,” she says.
There are also barriers to gaining warranties for used materials, says Kitty Walker, senior façade engineer at Buro Happold.
“You might want to build something with a 20-year warranty, but it may be that financers or clients are less likely to warranty something with unknowns,” she says.
“They might not see the point in taking that risk without knowing the material. It’s about giving clients more confidence with case studies, and doing more testing.”
What must happen next?
Recycling facilities are the biggest kind of new infrastructure we’ll need in the journey towards a circular economy, Edkins says.
“We’ll need material refurbishment facilities that enable the recovery of a wider group of materials in a far less polluted way, so that these materials can be reused and turned into good quality recyclates,” he says.
In the waste sector, there are some examples of good practice demonstrating how companies can rethink their approach to materials. The Suez plant in Manchester, Edkins says, has been logging where materials have come from for years, and has designed a programme of separating and reusing materials.
“It’s an evolution from what one thinks of as the normal activities of a waste management company,” he says.
More broadly, progressing circular economy principles to infrastructure in the UK will rely on framing it as an economic argument, Edkins says.
“A lot of work has been done on the circular economy taskforce to look at the extent to which handling these materials in a more circular way makes economic sense,” he says.
“Studies suggest that increases to GDP can come about from more circular handling of materials. The balance of evidence is that it’s positive for the economy, and can build more resilient supply chains.”
However, reforming the material basis of the economy will take a long time, Ekins adds.
“It’s only been around 10 years since circularity ideas were being seriously proposed and promulgated by policymakers,” he says. “But we’ve got to go further, and the incentives aren’t yet strong enough.”
Buchmaier is starting to see more start-ups focused on circularity, which she says are building with mycelium and other natural materials.
“There are a lot more conversations in this space now, and more interest in designing for circularity,” she says.
Produced by voluntary initiative Don’t Waste Buildings (DWB), the report claims this disparity is the ‘single most impactful barrier’ to building reuse.
The report was launched by Labour MP Rachel Blake at a reception in the Palace of Westminster. Credit: Bini Nandra, Kreative Barn
DWB is calling on the UK government to overhaul the tax system to incentivise the reuse of empty buildings, warning that Britain is missing out on ‘billions of pounds’ of economic growth.
Report lead author and DWB co-founder Richard Nelson commented: “A single empty building on a main street can define whether that street feels alive or forgotten. The opportunity is extraordinary. The only thing stopping us is the way we tax it.”
To increase the reuse of buildings, the report recommends levelling VAT rates and creating targeted grants for struggling high streets and derelict buildings.
The report also calls for tax credits or relief, such as introducing capital gains tax relief and stamp duty discounts, for bringing vacant buildings back into use while meeting sustainability quality measures.
Finally, it recommends establishing long-term low-interest loans with repayment grants for deep reuse projects either through the National Wealth Fund or a similar institution.
Don’t Waste Buildings is a voluntary initiative that works to highlight up-front, or embodied, carbon and advocates for the productive use of empty and underperforming buildings.
