Nigeria’s Central Bank Fleshes Out New Rule Allowing Crypto Firms’ Access to Bank Accounts

CoinDeskPolicyPublished on 2024-01-03Last updated on 2024-01-04

Abstract

Nigerian banks are still restricted from holding or trading crypto on their own behalf, despite regulators’ softening stance toward digital assets.

The Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) has released guidelines for banks on digital assets, a sign the country's regulators are softening their stringent stance on crypto.

The guidelines, publicized Tuesday on the bank's website, ​​provide greater details on the regulators’ decision to open accounts for virtual asset service providers last month. The rules are an about-face for Africa's largest economy, where a years-long ban once barred financial institutions from servicing crypto firms.

“Current trends globally have shown that there is a need to regulate the activities of virtual assets service providers which include cryptocurrencies and crypto assets,” the CBN said Tuesday in a statement.

Advertisement
Advertisement

The guidance does not lift restrictions on the holding or trading of cryptocurrencies by Nigerian banks on their own behalf. Also under the rules, cash withdrawals from crypto accounts and clearing third-party checks through virtual asset-holding accounts are forbidden.

Nigeria’s push to increase oversight of digital assets aligns with recent initiatives from neighboring African nations, where cryptocurrencies have become increasingly popular as hedges against inflation. In 2022, Botswana passed a law regulating the digital assets sector despite opposition from some lawmakers in the country. Meanwhile, the Bank of Mauritius has been planning to launch a central bank digital currency, Bloomberg News reported.

Edited by Sheldon Reback.

Related Reads

Never expected that the first tangible application of AI x Crypto is in security auditing

Unexpectedly, the initial major application of AI in the Crypto sphere has turned out to be security auditing. In 2026, DeFi has faced significant security challenges, with 121 hacking incidents resulting in approximately $942 million in losses. While AI was expected to first impact areas like quantitative trading, its initial breakthrough has instead transformed security auditing by drastically lowering the cost and skill barrier for finding smart contract vulnerabilities. The traditional audit model is facing obsolescence. Advanced AI models, such as Claude Mythos, enable attackers to scan thousands of contracts and identify vulnerability patterns at scale, compressing the time from discovery to execution to mere minutes. This renders the month-long validity of traditional audit reports ineffective. Notably, attacks now frequently target well-audited, established protocols by exploiting business logic flaws, operational security weaknesses, and even years-old historical contracts, demonstrating that old audit reports offer zero protection. This pressure is forcing a fundamental shift in the industry. In the short term, a wave of defensive re-auditing is occurring, driven by projects seeking to meet new AI-era security standards and regulatory requirements. In the long run, audit firms' business models are diverging. The one-time report delivery model is declining in value, as evidenced by platforms like Code4rena shutting down. Leading firms are now pivoting towards AI-powered defense, integrating continuous monitoring, real-time on-chain risk detection, and embedding security directly into the development phase, as seen with tools like OpenZeppelin's Skills system. Ultimately, the era of "audit once, secure forever" is over. Security must become a continuous, embedded infrastructure investment for projects. For audit companies, survival depends on proactively transforming from traditional service providers into platforms offering AI-native, ongoing security solutions.

链捕手7m ago

Never expected that the first tangible application of AI x Crypto is in security auditing

链捕手7m ago

Who's Paying for the $64 Billion Paper Feast?

"The Illusion of Wealth: Who Bears the Burden of the $64 Billion Paper Bonanza?" Bitcoin recently broke below the critical $60,000 support level, triggering significant selling by major holders. While the price drop itself is concerning, a deeper issue lies with publicly traded companies that have bet their entire balance sheets on Bitcoin, creating a precarious financial link between their stock prices and crypto valuations. Leading the pack is Strategy (formerly MicroStrategy), holding 847,000 BTC at an average cost of ~$75,600, now facing over 20% unrealized losses. Its stock trades at a deep discount to its Bitcoin holdings. Other companies like Japan's Metaplanet (nearly 40% unrealized loss) and Solmate (which fully pivoted to Solana and saw its stock collapse 98%) illustrate the risks of this model without underlying business operations. A key misconception is that these firms face immediate, forced liquidation. Their debt structures provide a buffer. However, the core "financial flywheel" is stalling. Strategy's CEO has even hinted at potentially selling Bitcoin to cover obligations—a reversal of his long-standing "never sell" doctrine. New accounting rules (ASU 2023-08) exacerbate the problem, requiring quarterly mark-to-market adjustments. Bull markets create paper profits, attracting capital. In bear markets, they generate massive paper losses, potentially triggering index exclusions and forced selling by passive funds. The true crisis point is not the current price, but a looming debt reckoning. If Bitcoin fails to recover above key cost bases within 12-24 months, convertible note redemption windows opening in Fall 2027 could force companies to sell massive Bitcoin holdings for cash, potentially triggering a severe liquidity crisis. The model hasn't eliminated risk; it has merely transformed instant, price-triggered liquidation into a slow-burning, time-triggered debt crisis.

marsbit17m ago

Who's Paying for the $64 Billion Paper Feast?

marsbit17m ago

Base Halts for Two Hours: A Single Invalid Block Reveals the Centralized Reality of L2s

Base, an Ethereum Layer-2 Rollup, experienced a two-hour network outage starting around 00:03 UTC on June 26. The halt was caused by a consensus issue that led to an invalid block being sequenced, which prevented the generation of new blocks after block 47806542. The team identified the problem, restored block sequencing by 01:51 UTC, and confirmed full recovery of ecosystem infrastructure synchronization shortly after. This incident highlights the operational reality for many L2s: while they leverage Ethereum for security and data availability, their day-to-day usability heavily depends on their sequencer and internal systems. Base employs a high-availability sequencer system with one active leader, but this setup did not prevent the outage when a consensus-level problem arose. This follows a previous 33-minute outage in August 2025 related to a faulty sequencer handover process. The downtime occurred near the scheduled activation window for the "Beryl" network upgrade, which has since been postponed. Beryl introduces the native B20 token standard, among other improvements. The incident has sparked renewed discussion about Base potentially launching its own network token in the future, shifting the conversation from mere speculation to questions about how a token might relate to sequencer decentralization, governance, and accountability in such failure scenarios.

Foresight News37m ago

Base Halts for Two Hours: A Single Invalid Block Reveals the Centralized Reality of L2s

Foresight News37m ago

Trading

Spot
活动图片