Self-custodial wallet / non-custodial software in Botswana
Publisher of software where users hold their own private keys. The publisher never holds, controls, or has access to user funds.
Self-custodial wallet is conditionally permitted in Botswana without local incorporation, subject to AML obligations and none licensing burden.
Verdict Details
- Permitted
- conditional
- Local entity required
- No
- Licensing burden
- None
- Last updated
- 2026-07-13
Key Restrictions
- The publisher never holds, controls, or has access to user private keys or funds, and therefore does not meet the VASP definition under the Virtual Assets Act, 2025, which requires 'custody or administration of virtual assets or instruments enabling control over virtual assets'.
- Since the publisher is not a licensed VASP in Botswana, it cannot offer custodial or intermediation services — it may only publish non-custodial software.
- No local entity, license, or capital requirement applies provided the publisher does not engage in any of the licensed activities: exchange, custody, transfer, or participation in ICO/STO services.
Key Risks
- Regulatory ambiguity: NBFIRA may interpret software distribution as a 'virtual asset service' if the software is marketed specifically to Botswana residents or includes any features that facilitate network-side transaction routing.
- FATF-style guidance (e.g., VASP definition creep) could in the future classify non-custodial wallet publishers as VASPs if they charge fees, sell premium features, or exert influence over transaction flow.
- Consumer-protection or software-liability laws in Botswana (e.g., product liability, cybersecurity obligations under the Botswana Cybersecurity Bill, 2025) could apply to software publishers even absent VASP classification.
Evidence
This verdict synthesizes the following facts. Each fact links to its primary source(s).
Custody Providers (Safekeeping and/or administration of Virtual Assets or Instruments enabling control over Virtual Assets):
Entities offering custodial services for virtual assets, meaning they hold or control private keys on behalf of clients, are considered VASPs and must be licensed. This applies to both institutional and retail custody solutions.
Section 3 (Definitions): Defines a "virtual asset service provider" (VASP) to include any person who, as a business, "provides custody or administration of virtual assets or instruments enabling control over virtual assets."
Section 3 (Definitions): A "virtual asset service provider" is any person who, as a business, performs one or more of several enumerated activities, including "custody or administration of virtual assets or instruments enabling control over virtual assets."
Legal Entity and Local Presence:
Applicants must be a company incorporated in Botswana under the Companies Act.
They must maintain a physical office in Botswana.
Senior management and key personnel are expected to be based in Botswana or demonstrate sufficient local oversight.
Principal VASP License: BWP 500,000 (Botswana Pula) in unimpaired capital. This typically covers the full range of VASP activities.
Limited VASP License: BWP 200,000 in unimpaired capital. This may be for VASPs with a narrower scope of activities or those determined by NBFIRA to pose lower risk.
Verdict Attribution
- Source:
- AI-Generated · Unreviewed
- AI synthesized:
- 2026-07-13 (deepseek-chat)
- Last updated:
- 2026-07-13
- Confidence:
- medium
This verdict was produced by an AI model from the underlying facts. Confirm with counsel before relying on it for material decisions.
Conditional — a pure non-custodial wallet publisher that never holds, controls, or has access to user private keys or funds does not meet the VASP definition under Botswana's Virtual Assets Act, 2025 (which requires 'custody or administration of virtual assets or instruments enabling control'), and therefore faces no licensing or AML obligations, but this conclusion depends on the publisher truly having zero custody or control and not marketing services that could be construed as intermediation.
Questions this verdict aims to answer
- Does software publishing trigger VASP / MSB classification?
- Do AML obligations attach when no custody exists?
- What disclosure or consumer-protection rules apply?