What the October entries actually say

On 20 October 2026, Dubai’s Virtual Assets Regulatory Authority records the issue of an exchange services licence to Bybit Fintech FZE, reference VL/26/10/003. Its entry for Payward FZCO, reference VL/26/10/002, gives an issue date of 6 October and lists management and investment services alongside broker-dealer services. Both were marked active when CryptoGov reviewed the register on 1 November. The comparison matters because a search for two familiar businesses produces two materially different answers to the question of what each local entity is licensed to do. The dates refer to issuance. They do not establish when a particular customer could first access any particular product.

Start from the transaction you intend to make

Imagine a Dubai company preparing a request for proposals. One desk wants access to a trading venue. Another wants a manager to make investment decisions under a mandate. Copying the same list of successful register searches into both procurement files obscures the difference between those needs. Write the proposed service as a verb, identify the company that would sign the agreement, and compare that pair with the published entry. If an offer combines order execution, portfolio management and asset storage, break it into rows. Ask which legal person performs each function and where the corresponding evidence can be checked. A single logo at the top of a slide cannot fill three rows.

What to keep in the decision file

Save the entity name, licence reference, date checked, listed activities and link to the entry. In a separate column cite the paragraph of the proposed agreement that names the service provider. Where a service appears in the offer but the evidence collected does not explain who performs it, leave the approval field open. Send the counterparty the precise question and retain its reply alongside the official record. This approach lets another reviewer reproduce the comparison if the product or the contract changes. It also prevents an attractive but unwarranted conclusion: two active licences do not make two proposals interchangeable. Price, settlement terms, asset handling and contractual recourse still require their own review.

One useful procurement test is to hand the completed file to a colleague who has never used either platform. Ask that colleague to identify who would receive the order, who would have discretion over the assets, and which of those answers is independently documented.

Go deeper on CryptoGov

Sources & verification

Researched and published by CryptoGov Editorial Desk. Source publication and effective dates are explained in the article where relevant.