Position on Countries Other Than the United States
Position on Countries Other Than the United States
This page explains how WANNA and G-Series Stablecoin 2.0 (including GUSD) are positioned in jurisdictions outside the United States, and how we think about current and future regulation in those regions.
It is not legal advice and does not replace country-specific opinions from qualified counsel.
1. Current Landscape: Partly Defined, Not Settled
Many major jurisdictions have begun to introduce or discuss frameworks for stablecoins and digital assets. Examples include:
European Union (MiCA) – distinguishing e-money tokens and asset-referenced tokens, with licensing and reserve rules.
Japan – treating 1:1 fiat-redeemable stablecoins as electronic payment instruments under bank / trust / funds transfer regulation.
Korea and other markets – progressing toward digital asset “basic acts”, payment and reserve regulations, and investor protection rules.
However, even where primary stablecoin rules exist, the legal status of structures like G-Series remains not fully settled, especially where:
tokens are backed by other regulated stablecoins or RWAs
the protocol acts as a second-layer FX and settlement system on top of them
Key open questions in many jurisdictions include:
How to classify layered / asset-referenced tokens that use regulated stablecoins as collateral.
How to treat on-chain protocols that aggregate multiple regulated instruments into a global FX and payment layer.
Because of this, we assume that G-Series does not yet fit cleanly into a single, universally defined category in most non-U.S. markets.
2. Our Structural Positioning Outside the U.S.
In non-U.S. jurisdictions, G-Series is designed with three core ideas in mind:
Use Already-Regulated Building Blocks Wherever Possible
When feasible, we aim to use stablecoins and RWAs that are themselves issued under local law (e.g., bank-issued domestic stablecoins, regulated USD stablecoins, compliant RWA vehicles).
G-Series then operates as a global FX / settlement layer on top of these instruments, rather than replacing local regulatory structures.
Act as Infrastructure, Not a Retail Bank Substitute
G-Series is intended as an infrastructure layer for:
FX
cross-border flows
multi-currency settlement, not as a direct substitute for domestic deposits, bank accounts, or payment licenses
Design for Future Compliance, Not Regulatory Evasion
The architecture (reserves, transparency, governance, and guardrails) is intentionally built so it can be aligned with future licensing and supervision, rather than engineered to avoid regulation altogether.
3. Our Approach by Phase
As non-U.S. regulation continues to evolve, our working approach is:
Phase A – Before Stablecoin / Layer-2 Laws Are Fully Clarified
Build and operate G-Series as:
a technically conservative, over-collateralized system
using collateral that is as compliant and transparent as possible in each region
Avoid positioning G-Series as:
a domestic “official” payment system
a direct 1:1 fiat deposit product targeting retail users
Phase B – After Local Frameworks Become Clear
When a jurisdiction:
adopts clear rules for stablecoins, asset-referenced tokens, or payment-related DeFi structures
clarifies the licensing path for entities operating such systems
we intend to:
adapt G-Series to fit within that framework where feasible, including:
setting up or partnering with locally licensed entities
adjusting reserve, disclosure, or redemption models
limiting or restructuring access for certain products or user groups if required
In some countries, the result may be that:
only institutional or licensed partners can access certain features
G-Series services are narrowed or restricted to fit the local regime
4. Local Partners, Licensing, and Structuring
Over time, and depending on demand and legal feasibility, we may:
collaborate with banks, trust companies, licensed payment institutions, RWA issuers, and VASP-licensed entities in specific jurisdictions
support local wrappers or variants of G-Series that:
comply with local reserve, segregation, and reporting rules
plug into the wider WANNA / G-Series network via standardized interfaces
introduce jurisdiction-specific limits or modules for:
KYC/AML
sanctions screening
access segmentation (retail vs professional vs institution)
Whether and how this is implemented will depend on:
regulatory clarity
partner readiness
commercial viability in each market
5. What Users and Partners Should Assume
For countries other than the U.S., users and partners should assume that:
The exact legal classification of G-Series may differ by country and may change over time.
Some jurisdictions may ultimately treat G-Series (or specific variants) as:
stablecoins
e-money
asset-referenced tokens
payment instruments
other regulated products
Access, marketing, or functionality may need to be:
restricted, localized, or modified to meet local requirements
Any entity that:
integrates G-Series into user-facing products
offers G-Series-based services in a particular country
should obtain independent local legal advice regarding:
licensing
consumer protection
AML/sanctions
tax / reporting obligations
6. Summary
Outside the United States, our approach can be summarized as:
“We build G-Series as a global FX and settlement layer on top of assets that are themselves regulated locally, and we are prepared to align with each country’s stablecoin / digital asset framework as it becomes concrete—even if that requires structural adjustments, localization, or restrictions.”
This is a design and policy direction, not a guarantee of any particular regulatory outcome. As laws evolve, our analysis and positioning may be updated accordingly.
Last updated