BlockShoals Says Binance Could Operate in the Philippines Under SEC Rules

Binance’s renewed path to serving users in the Philippines is being shaped by a legal framework that hinges on what the companies say they are—and are not—doing under local rules. According to BlockShoals’ head of legal, Marie Antonette Quiogue, Binance may provide trading access through its arrangement with BlockShoals, but neither party is authorized to handle peso transfers or carry out other activities regulated by the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP), the Philippines’ central bank.

The discussion underscores a central tension in cryptocurrency regulation: whether an exchange can operate through an intermediary and a regulator-run sandbox while avoiding separate licensing requirements tied to banking and payments. The BSP has maintained that neither Binance nor BlockShoals is authorized to operate as a virtual asset service provider (VASP).

Key takeaways

• BlockShoals argues Binance’s trading access falls under the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) authority for crypto asset services, not BSP-regulated peso transfers.
• The BSP says participation in the SEC’s sandbox does not remove the need to comply with applicable laws and licensing obligations.
• Neither Binance nor BlockShoals has applied for a local VASP license, according to Quiogue.
• Binance’s return comes after the SEC and other regulators restricted access over licensing concerns in 2024.

How BlockShoals’ structure attempts to fit SEC oversight

Quiogue, who leads legal at BlockShoals, told Cointelegraph at Philippine Blockchain Week 2026 that Binance’s local activities are intended to operate under the SEC’s crypto asset service provider (CASP) framework. Under this model, BlockShoals acts as an intermediary, connecting Philippine users to Binance’s global trading platform.

She said the arrangement is designed to align with the SEC’s Strategic Sandbox, or StratBox. In practical terms, this is meant to establish which regulator—SEC versus BSP—has jurisdiction over the specific activities being offered.

Quiogue did not challenge the BSP’s position that neither company is authorized as a VASP in the Philippines. Instead, she argued that the lack of a VASP license does not automatically block the companies from providing services where the SEC has jurisdiction.

Her key distinction was operational: “Trading, the activity of trading, is clearly under the jurisdiction of the SEC,” she said, while adding that BlockShoals and Binance are “not moving pesos, which is clearly under the jurisdiction of the BSP.”

BSP stance: sandbox participation doesn’t eliminate licensing duties

While the SEC framework may govern trading-related activities, the BSP’s message is that regulatory experiments or sandbox participation do not excuse compliance with banking and payments rules. The central bank told Cointelegraph that neither Binance nor BlockShoals is authorized to operate as a VASP.

The BSP also emphasized that sandbox participation does not create a blanket exemption from other laws. As stated by the BSP, involvement in the regulatory sandbox “does not exempt an entity from complying with applicable laws, rules, and regulations, including any licensing requirements imposed by relevant regulators.” The BSP added that it was coordinating with the SEC on the issue.

From a compliance perspective, the practical implication is straightforward: if a service drifts into areas treated as VASP activity—or if it involves regulated functions tied to the BSP’s remit—additional authorization could still be required, even if the trading interface itself is routed through the SEC sandbox structure.

What changes—and what remains unresolved

Quiogue acknowledged that neither Binance nor BlockShoals sought a local VASP license. But she argued that when the companies introduce services that fall under a different regulator’s scope, they must obtain the relevant authority.

“If BlockShoals and Binance will be offering any product that is regulated by any other government agency, you have to get an authority from them,” she said. In other words, the legal position presented is conditional: permitted access depends on staying within the regulator-assigned boundaries.

This raises an investor-and-user question that matters beyond the immediate headline. Even where an exchange is accessible again, the legal risk may depend less on the existence of a sandbox relationship and more on the precise flow of activities behind the scenes—particularly anything touching transfers, custody, or payment rails that might be interpreted as BSP-regulated conduct.

For users, the change appears to be the restoration of platform accessibility under a new local structuring. For compliance watchers, the more important detail is that the arrangement is built around jurisdictional separation rather than a confirmed license covering all aspects of crypto services.

Background: restrictions followed SEC warnings over licensing

Regulatory scrutiny in the Philippines predates this latest arrangement. In November 2023, the SEC warned that Binance was not authorized to sell or offer securities in the country, citing the absence of the necessary license and registration. The SEC also pointed to the Binance platform’s status in relation to local regulatory requirements, according to the SEC’s advisory at the time.

Then in March 2024, the SEC said it had asked the National Telecommunications Commission to block access to the Binance website and related webpages. Following that order, internet providers in the Philippines began restricting access to the platform.

By the time Cointelegraph published its interview, Binance’s platform was accessible to users in the Philippines. That accessibility now appears tied to the BlockShoals arrangement and the assertion that trading-related activities can be handled under the SEC’s CASP and StratBox framework, while peso transfers and other BSP-regulated functions remain outside the scope of what the companies are doing.

Readers should watch how regulators operationalize these jurisdictional boundaries: whether the arrangement remains limited to trading access routed through SEC-supervised structures, and whether any expansion into payment-adjacent or custody-like functions triggers new licensing or enforcement actions from the BSP and SEC.