Advisory Services: When Crypto Advice Needs a Licence

Not every opinion about a coin is regulated activity, but under Pakistan’s Virtual Assets Act, 2026, some of them are. Schedule I item 1 sets out a service category called Advisory Services, and the line it draws — between a personalised recommendation and general commentary — decides whether a research desk, a portfolio consultant, or a crypto influencer needs a licence from the Pakistan Virtual Asset Regulatory Authority (“PVARA”) before continuing to operate in or from Pakistan.

This article works through what the definition covers, what the Act’s own explanation excludes, and why the answer often turns on how a piece of content is framed rather than what it says.

What are Advisory Services under Schedule I?

Schedule I item 1 of the Act defines the category as follows:

“means the provision of personalised recommendations, on professional basis, to a customer, either upon request or at the initiative of Virtual Asset Service Providers, relating to one or more actions or transactions involving Virtual Assets.”

Four elements have to be present together: the recommendation must be personalised, it must be given on a professional basis, it must go to a customer, and it must relate to one or more actions or transactions involving a Virtual Asset. Remove any one of those elements and the activity sits outside item 1 as drafted. The trigger does not depend on whether the advice was solicited — the Act expressly covers recommendations given “either upon request or at the initiative of” the provider, so unsolicited advice is caught on the same basis as advice a customer asks for.

What makes a recommendation “personalised” rather than general?

This is the operative test, and the Act supplies its own definition rather than leaving the word to interpretation. Immediately below the Schedule I item 1 table, the Act states:

“The term ‘personalised’ refers to recommendations that are addressed to a specific customer and take into account (or are presented as taking into account) that customer’s individual circumstances, objectives, risk profile or financial situation. General market information, research reports or non-individualised suggestions do not constitute personalised recommendations.”

Two things stand out in that wording. First, the test catches recommendations that are merely “presented as” taking individual circumstances into account, even if they do not genuinely do so — a generic recommendation dressed up with a customer’s name and a reference to “your portfolio” can still trip the personalised test on its framing alone. Second, the exclusion for general market information, research reports and non-individualised suggestions is explicit and named in the Act itself, not something this analysis is inferring.

Does publishing crypto market research count as an Advisory Service?

Not on the wording of the carve-out, provided the research stays general. A report analysing market trends, a newsletter covering sector-wide developments, or a comparison of Virtual Assets published to an undefined audience falls within the “research reports” and “general market information” language the Act excludes from item 1, because it is not addressed to a specific customer’s circumstances.

The distinction breaks down the moment that same content is repackaged for one customer with a suggestion tied to their stated objectives or risk profile. In practice, the safer operational line for any business producing crypto content is to keep genuinely general material clearly separated — in format, distribution and internal sign-off — from anything sent one-to-one with individualised framing, since the two can otherwise blur inside the same publication schedule.

Is Advisory Services one of PVARA’s phased AML-Registered Services?

No, and this matters for sequencing. PVARA’s No Objection Certificate Regulations 2025 designate four specific Virtual Asset Services — Broker-Dealer, Custody, Exchange and Virtual Asset Derivatives Services — as “AML Registered Services” under Regulation 2.3, meaning a business granted a No Objection Certificate (“NOC”) may begin providing those four services before a full licence is issued, once it has completed goAML registration.

Advisory Services do not appear on that list. Regulation 2.3 of the NOC Regulations states plainly that “all other Virtual Asset Services defined under the Ordinance not otherwise constituted as an AML Registered Service may only be provided following the grant of a full license under Section 17, unless otherwise agreed with PVARA.” Read together with section 19 of the Act, which requires a No Objection Certificate before incorporation and a separate licence application after it, a business intending to offer personalised crypto recommendations in Pakistan should plan for the full licensing timeline, not the shorter AML-Registered pathway available to exchange, custody, broker-dealer and derivatives businesses.

Who inside an advisory business counts as a Key Individual for fit-and-proper purposes?

Anyone occupying one of the roles listed in section 3(1)(xv) of the Act, and PVARA’s NOC Regulations add detail on top of that statutory list. Section 20 of the Act requires the Authority to assess whether a Controller, Sponsor, Chief Executive Officer and Director is fit and proper, and extends that requirement to all Key Individuals more broadly. Regulation 5.1 of the NOC Regulations lists the specific roles an applicant must maintain, including the Chief Executive Officer, a director, the Chief Financial Officer, the Compliance Officer, the Money Laundering Reporting Officer, and heads of internal audit, risk management and information security.

An advisory-only business is typically smaller and less operationally complex than an exchange or custodian, but Regulation 5.2 allows the Compliance Officer and MLRO functions to be combined “where justified by the size and complexity of the applicant” — a provision worth noting for a leaner advisory team, since it gives PVARA discretion to accept a combined role rather than requiring two separate appointments regardless of firm size.

How does an advisory service differ from portfolio management under Schedule I?

The dividing line is discretion, not the subject matter. Advisory Services under item 1 involve giving a recommendation that the customer decides whether to act on — the customer retains control of the transaction decision. Virtual Asset Management and Investment Services under Schedule I item 7 cover a different activity: acting in a fiduciary or agency capacity to manage or administer a customer’s Virtual Assets, including portfolio or discretionary investment management, where the provider itself makes and executes the investment decision rather than merely recommending it.

A business that starts as a pure advisory operation and later begins executing trades on a customer’s behalf without seeking fresh instruction for each transaction has moved from item 1 into item 7 territory, and should expect that shift to carry its own separate licensing consequence rather than being absorbed into an existing Advisory Services authorisation.

What should a firm offering crypto advice in Pakistan prepare?

Three points follow directly from Schedule I item 1 and the wider Act:

• Separate general content from personalised advice at the point of production, not after the fact — the Act’s carve-out protects research reports and general market information specifically because they are not addressed to a customer’s individual circumstances, so mixing formats erodes that protection.
• Plan for the full licensing route rather than a phased AML-Registered pathway, since Advisory Services sits outside the four services PVARA’s NOC Regulations currently allow to operate on NOC-plus-goAML-registration alone.
• Map Key Individual roles against section 20 of the Act and Regulation 5.1 of the NOC Regulations early, including whether a combined Compliance Officer / MLRO role is appropriate for the firm’s size, since fit-and-proper assessment under section 20 is continuing in nature and applies before as well as after a licence is granted.

About this analysis

This analysis was prepared by the CoinConnect research desk from the Virtual Assets Act, 2026 — principally section 18, Schedule I item 1, and sections 19 and 20 — read alongside PVARA’s No Objection Certificate Regulations 2025, Regulations 2.3 and 5. Where practice is not yet settled or guidance has not been issued, that is stated in the text above.

Regulatory positions change and specific requirements should be verified against the current position published by the relevant authority before you act on them. This is information and analysis, not legal advice, and it does not create an advisory relationship. Take professional advice on your own circumstances.