AFM Warns Token Launchers: Easy to Create, Hard to Comply
The Dutch Authority for the Financial Markets (AFM) has issued a plain reminder: creating a crypto-asset may take minutes, but offering it to the public brings legal duties under the EU Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCAR). For finance teams, auditors and the people choosing crypto accounting software, the message is practical. Every token offering, memecoin included, should leave a documented trail showing who the issuer is, what was published and how it was promoted.
The AFM published its notice on 6 November 2026. It does not announce a new rule. It points at an existing one and signals that enforcement is possible when the rule is ignored. That distinction matters for how you read it: this is a supervisory warning about awareness and conduct, not a change in the law.
What the AFM actually said
The regulator's starting observation is about accessibility. New tokens and memecoins are increasingly launched through online platforms where almost anyone can create a crypto-asset quickly and put it in front of a large audience. The technical barrier is low. The AFM's point is that a low technical barrier should not be confused with a light legal burden.
AFM board member Hanzo van Beusekom framed it as a matter of responsibility. Launching can be done in minutes, he said, but that ease must not be read as having no obligations. Anyone who creates a crypto-asset and offers it to the public should study the rules in advance and comply with the legal requirements. Consumers, in his words, should be able to rely on honest information.
The obligations named in the notice
The AFM highlights several requirements for anyone who creates and offers a crypto-asset to the public:
- Legal entity only. Only a legal entity may offer crypto-assets to the public. For private individuals this is prohibited.
- Whitepaper. As a rule, a whitepaper must be drawn up, notified and published.
- Advertising standards. Promotional statements must be correct, clear and not misleading, must be consistent with the information in the whitepaper, and must be recognisable as promotion.
- Channels count. The advertising rule applies to statements on a website and to statements on social media.
Why the AFM is worried
The AFM says people who create and offer crypto-assets, memecoins among them, do not always seem aware of the rules that apply. It calls this worrying because such assets are particularly susceptible to deception, fraud and market abuse. The regulator also tells consumers to research before investing: check who the offeror is, whether it is a legal entity, whether a whitepaper exists and which risks it describes. It adds that consumers should be extra critical of unrealistic promises and of social media posts that lean on quick profits.
What enforcement could look like
Where the AFM finds that legal requirements are not met, it can act. Depending on the circumstances, the notice says, that can lead to warnings, instructions or fines. The notice does not name any specific firm, token or penalty amount, and this article does not infer any.
Why this matters to firms and CFOs
A warning aimed at token creators might look remote from an accounting practice. It is not, for three reasons.
Clients who issue, promote or fund tokens
Some clients will be the offeror. A Dutch operating company that mints a community token, a loyalty token or a project token and offers it to the public is within the scope the AFM is describing. Others will be adjacent: they pay for the marketing, hold the treasury, or receive tokens as consideration. In each case, the finance function is likely to be the one that holds the evidence of what was offered, by whom and when.
The AFM's point that only a legal entity may make the offer has a direct bookkeeping consequence. Tokens minted by an individual and later contributed to a company, or launched from a personal wallet and promoted by the business, create a mismatch between the legal offeror and the entity whose books should reflect the activity. That mismatch is exactly what a reviewer will look for.
Audit evidence and the whitepaper
The whitepaper is more than a marketing document. Because advertising must align with it, it becomes a reference point for judging whether claims were consistent. An auditor assessing disclosures, contingent liabilities or revenue recognition on a token issuance will reasonably want the published version, the notification record and a dated archive of promotional content. If those documents sit in a founder's personal drive or a chat thread, the evidence trail is weak.
Reputational and operational exposure
The AFM links these assets to deception, fraud and market abuse. For a firm, that raises client-acceptance and ongoing-monitoring questions. A client launching a token without a legal entity, a whitepaper or controlled marketing is a higher-risk engagement, and the AML and professional-scepticism work should reflect that.
Accounting implications for finance teams
The AFM notice is a conduct and consumer-protection message, not an accounting pronouncement. It says nothing about recognition, measurement or presentation, and it would be wrong to read a specific accounting treatment into it. What it does shape is the quality of the underlying records on which any treatment depends.
Records you should be able to produce
For any client activity involving a token offering, a prudent file would include:
- The identity of the legal entity that made the offer, with evidence it was the offeror and not an individual.
- The published whitepaper, the notification, and the dates of each.
- A dated archive of promotional statements on the website and on social media, mapped against the whitepaper.
- Wallet addresses and smart-contract details for the token, linked to the legal entity that controls them.
- On-chain records of mints, transfers, sales and any treasury movements, reconciled to the ledger.
Where software earns its place
Spreadsheets struggle when a token is minted, distributed across many wallets and traded on several venues. Crypto accounting software that ingests on-chain data, ties wallets to legal entities and preserves an immutable transaction history gives you the reconciliation layer an auditor will ask for. For firms comparing crypto bookkeeping software or digital asset accounting software, this notice is a useful test of requirements. Can the tool show which entity controls a given address? Can it attach supporting documents such as a whitepaper reference to a transaction population? Can it export a clean audit trail?
None of that replaces judgement. The classification of a token, the treatment of proceeds and the disclosure approach depend on the facts and on the reporting framework your client applies. The software's job is to make the facts reliable and retrievable.
Treasury and counterparties
Clients that hold or trade tokens issued by others should ask whether the offeror appears to be a legal entity with a published whitepaper. The AFM's consumer checklist, built for retail investors, doubles as a basic due-diligence prompt for a corporate treasury policy: identify the offeror, confirm it is a legal entity, look for the whitepaper and read the risks it sets out. Documenting that check before a position is taken strengthens the file if the asset later proves problematic.
Tax and AML considerations
The AFM notice does not address tax, and nothing here should be read as a statement of Dutch or EU tax treatment. Tax follows from the facts of each case, so the documentary discipline above supports it: proceeds from a token offering, tokens received as payment, and tokens used to fund marketing all need dated, valued, wallet-attributed records before any tax analysis can be done reliably.
Tax file hygiene
If a founder launches personally and the business later adopts the token, the question of who held the asset, and when, becomes central. Clean entity-to-wallet mapping reduces the risk of a dispute about the period or the taxpayer. For multi-entity groups, intercompany movements of tokens should be recorded as such rather than left as unexplained wallet transfers.
AML and client due diligence
The regulator's stress on fraud and market abuse is relevant to anti-money-laundering risk assessment. Practitioners who onboard a client launching a token can reasonably ask for the legal entity details, the source of the funds used for the launch, the whitepaper and the marketing plan. Unclear answers on any of these are a flag. The AFM notice does not set AML obligations itself, so apply your own firm's policies and the rules that already bind you.
What to do now
A short action list for firms and CFOs
- Identify exposure. List clients that create, promote, fund or hold tokens, memecoins included, and note which are Dutch or offer to Dutch audiences.
- Confirm the offeror. For each offering, verify that a legal entity, not an individual, is the offeror and that the books of that entity reflect the activity.
- Collect the documents. Obtain the whitepaper, the notification evidence and an archive of website and social media promotion.
- Check consistency. Compare promotional statements against the whitepaper and escalate anything that goes beyond it.
- Tighten the data layer. Make sure wallet addresses, mints and transfers are captured in your crypto accounting software and tied to the right entity.
- Update acceptance and monitoring. Add token-offering questions to client onboarding and periodic review.
What not to assume
Do not assume a small or informal launch falls outside the rules because it was quick or cheap. The AFM's framing says the opposite. Do not assume that having a whitepaper alone is enough, since the advertising must also be correct, clear, non-misleading and consistent with it. And do not assume a particular enforcement outcome: the notice lists warnings, instructions or fines as possibilities, without any figures.
How this fits the wider EU picture
MiCAR is an EU regulation, so the AFM is applying a framework that exists across member states, while the supervisory voice here is Dutch. If your clients operate across borders, the same questions about legal-entity status, whitepaper and advertising are likely to be asked elsewhere, but you should confirm the position with the relevant national authority rather than extrapolating from this notice. For related EU supervisory material, see FMA Liechtenstein's guidance on asset-referenced tokens under MiCA, and for the bookkeeping mechanics behind on-chain activity, read about how DeFi protocol mechanics shape your books. Our pillar page on crypto compliance reporting collects the broader reporting obligations in one place.
The underlying lesson holds beyond the Netherlands. When creation is cheap and fast, regulators shift attention to conduct, and evidence becomes the differentiator between a defensible file and an exposed one.
FAQ
Does the AFM notice create a new accounting requirement?
No. It reminds token creators of existing MiCAR obligations and says the AFM can enforce them. It does not set recognition, measurement or disclosure rules, so your reporting framework still governs the accounting treatment.
Can an individual offer a crypto-asset to the public in the Netherlands?
According to the AFM, no. Only a legal entity may offer crypto-assets to the public, and this is prohibited for private individuals. Firms should check that the offeror is a company and that the company's books reflect the activity.
Is a whitepaper always required?
The AFM says a whitepaper must generally be drawn up, notified and published. The word "generally" signals that exceptions can exist, so confirm the position for the specific token and offering rather than assuming it applies or does not.
Does the advertising rule cover social media posts?
Yes. The AFM states that promotional statements must be correct, clear, not misleading, consistent with the whitepaper and recognisable as promotion, and that this includes statements on a website and on social media.
How can crypto accounting software help with this?
It can reconcile on-chain mints and transfers to the ledger, tie wallet addresses to the correct legal entity and preserve a transaction history for audit. It cannot decide how a token should be classified or reported, which still needs professional judgement.
Source: AFM Netherlands