Australia's PDTI Regulatory Shift and How it Reclassifies Existing Blockchain Infrastructure

Across regions, crypto regulation is currently targeting financial intermediaries, with most excluding blockchain-based infrastructure. In the EU, for example, MICA (Markets in Crypto-Assets) establishes strict guidelines and appropriate licensing for Crypto-Assets Service Providers (CASP) such as exchanges, while excluding fully decentralized protocols where there are no intermediaries. In the UK, the Financial Services and Markets Act (FSMA) extends regulations mainly to firms offering custody and trading services, and not to underlying blockchain protocols. Not surprisingly, Australia is moving in the same direction through its Public Digital Token Infrastructure (PDTI) framework.

Unlike the EU and UK, Australia takes a step further by explicitly defining non-custodial protocols as infrastructure, separating them from financial services-related activities. PDTI distinguishes systems based on whether they are intermediate financial firms or merely offer the technical tools for asset coordination and settlement. This framing challenges the existing assumption that any protocol or platform that facilitates value transfer of any kind must be regulated as a financial service product.

Classification of Digital Assets Based on Structure, Rights, and Functions

Australian Securities and Investment Commission, especially the updated INFO 225 reinforces that the classification of digital assets will depend on their structure, functions, and rights, and not particularly the underlying technology on which it was built. The emerging PDTI framing now offers a more operational interpretation of the principle, and instead of treating all blockchain systems as financial products, it differentiates them into custodial platforms (regulated financial service products) and non-custodial protocols (infrastructure systems). The contrast, however, lies in custody and control.

Essentially, systems that hold users’ funds or make decisions over transactions are classified as financial services, and systems that do not are categorized as infrastructure. This creates a clear structural opening that did not previously exist.

Clearing and Settlement: Why this Classification Matters

The foremost implication of PDTI and the classification of functions is in how clearing and settlement are interpreted under the auspices of the law. In traditional financial systems, clearing and settlement are mainly performed by licensed intermediaries and are all under a set of regulated frameworks. However, under PDTI-focused interpretation, this function may not necessarily have to be performed by an intermediary. They can be embedded into an infrastructure, provided it does not hold assets or exercise discretionary authority over transactions. In fact, the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), in its in-depth work on the “Blueprint for the Future of Monetary Systems” explored the embedding of settlement into decentralized infrastructure layers as a better alternative to relying exclusively on intermediaries.

Another foremost implication of PDTI is the introduction of a multiple-layered model of digital finance infrastructure, splitting it into three layers: the Infrastructure layer, the Application layer, and the Financial layer. This is vital because it prevents all blockchain-related activities from being grouped into a single category. Instead, different systems are assessed independently based on their roles, allowing non-custodial protocols to exist freely without being seen as financial service products.

Where and How Redbelly Network Fits into this Regulatory Shift

As the world's first formally verified blockchain, Redbelly Network is designed to thrive around the functional separation of the PDTI framework. Built mainly as a non-custodial settlement infrastructure, it does not hold users’ funds nor act as a financial counterparty. Rather, it enforces deterministic rules for transaction validation and settlement at the protocol level. Under the PDTI framing, this positions Redbelly Network as an infrastructure-layered protocol that simply undertakes settlement logic without custody. In essence, Redbelly can operate fully in an environment where clearing and settlement functions are handled at the protocol layer without licensing requirements.

Redbelly Network’s ecosystem reflects the separation through its underlying architecture. It was not built as a single, comprehensive financial entity where all important functions are executed in one layer, it is spread across layers. For instance, Averer handles identity, custody interface, and wallet experience while Tokeniser manages permissioning and issuance. This separation of functions ensures that key activities are not forced into a single custodial service while also being in perfect alignment with how the country’s PDTI framing distinguishes infrastructure from financial services.

The last standout implication of PDTI is how it seamlessly removes long-standing classification ambiguity for already existing systems like Redbelly Network, thus creating an open environment where genuinely decentralized protocols can thrive.

Conclusion

Australia's PDTI framework, the EU’s MICA guidelines, the UK’s FSMA, and other regulatory frameworks like Singapore’s Payment Service Act signal a clear and broader change in how digital assets are being interpreted and regulated. The question has now shifted from whether blockchain systems are seen as financial service products, to whether they are capable of performing financial intermediation. Redbelly Network, in this context, is positioned as an infrastructure that is not merely adapting to newfangled regulatory frameworks, but one that is already aligned with a classification that the world is only now beginning to accurately define.

***

DISCLAIMER

The views, the opinions and the positions expressed in this article are those of the author alone and do not necessarily represent those of https://www.cryptowisser.com/ or any company or individual affiliated with https://www.cryptowisser.com/. We do not guarantee the accuracy, completeness or validity of any statements made within this article. We accept no liability for any errors, omissions or representations. The copyright of this content belongs to the author. Any liability with regards to infringement of intellectual property rights also remains with them.