Project Pigeon's 4 Risk Pillars Aim to Shape APAC Crypto Legal Standards

For legal and compliance professionals, the formation of Project Pigeon is less a technology story than a standards-building exercise with regulatory consequences. With Baker McKenzie acting as secretariat, the working group aims to translate MAS's April 2026 consultation paper into a defensible, auditable governance framework that banks can use to justify Group 1 crypto asset treatment.

On August 13, 2026, a consortium co-convened by Elliptic, the Digital Asset Association (DAA), the Responsible Fintech Institute (RFI) and Baker McKenzie Wong & Leow announced the formation of Project Pigeon, an APAC working group dedicated to governance standards for permissionless blockchains. The press release positions the initiative as a bridge between open, decentralized networks and the prudential expectations of regulated financial institutions. The group's stated primary objective is to help banks assess and address the regulatory considerations raised in the Monetary Authority of Singapore's April 2026 consultation paper on the prudential treatment of crypto assets on permissionless blockchains. Project Pigeon is structured around four fundamental risk pillars, each spearheaded by a designated co-convenor, although the specific contents of those pillars were not disclosed in the announcement.

“

For legal and compliance professionals, the formation of Project Pigeon is less a technology story than a standards-building exercise with regulatory consequences.

Because both source articles are syndicated press releases, the launch should be read as an intent and coalition-building exercise rather than a completed standard. There is no named bank participant, no delivery date for the framework, and no enforcement mechanism detailed. Nonetheless, the choice of conveners is consequential. Elliptic brings blockchain analytics and on-chain risk expertise; DAA and RFI bring industry and responsible fintech networks; Baker McKenzie, as secretariat, provides legal drafting discipline and editorial oversight. The group also states it has established observer and consulting roles for leading regulatory bodies, which could turn the framework into a de facto compliance reference.

The timing follows MAS's April 2026 consultation, which raises questions about how banks should prudently treat cryptoassets that reside on permissionless blockchains. In global prudential language, Group 1 crypto asset treatment generally refers to tokenized traditional assets and qualifying stablecoins that can receive more favorable capital weightings than unbacked cryptoassets in Group 2. If a standard risk-management framework can demonstrate compliance with those conditions on permissionless blockchains, banks could hold tokenized cash, tokenized securities, and regulated stablecoins on public networks without the punitive capital charges typically associated with crypto. That outcome would matter well beyond Singapore: financial hubs across APAC frequently align with MAS-led standards, and a regional framework could be adopted in Hong Kong, Japan, Australia, and elsewhere.

The formation of a multi-stakeholder working group also signals a maturing phase for digital asset governance. Instead of treating permissionless blockchains as a single undifferentiated risk, the initiative appears to segment risk by pillar, with designated owners from crypto-native and institutional backgrounds. This mirrors the operational reality of banks: the issue is no longer whether blockchain is permissible, but how to evidence controls around custody, transaction monitoring, smart contract risk, and settlement finality in the absence of a centralized intermediary. The carrier-pigeon branding is rhetorical, but it points to the core problem of trusted communication and value transfer across open networks.