Proposal · Comments close · Applies to Payment providers, VASPs, Stablecoin issuers
MAS consultation paper P017-2026 proposes that all major and standard payment institutions licensed under the Payment Services Act 2019 subscribe to the Financial Industry Disputes Resolution Centre (FIDReC), so their customers can take eligible disputes to mediation and adjudication. MAS-regulated stablecoin issuers would follow once the stablecoin framework is in force. Money-changing licensees are excluded. Comments close on 30 November 2026.
Why it matters: A retail holder of a MAS-regulated stablecoin would get an independent dispute forum that holders of Hong Kong's licensed stablecoins do not have. R.M.
The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) published consultation paper P017-2026 on 16 October 2026. Under the Financial Services and Markets (Dispute Resolution Schemes) Regulations 2023 (DRS Regulations), financial institutions listed in the Second Schedule must subscribe to an approved dispute resolution scheme, and the Financial Industry Disputes Resolution Centre (FIDReC) is the only approved operator (para 1.1). Payment service providers are not on that list today (para 1.2).
All major payment institution (MPI) and standard payment institution (SPI) licensees would have to subscribe (para 3.1). The paper notes that payment service providers handle “customer monies and digital payment tokens”, and that disputes may arise from service lapses, misrepresentation, misconduct or the apportionment of scam losses (para 3.2).
MAS-regulated stablecoin issuers would have to subscribe “within an appropriate timeframe” after the stablecoin framework comes into force, because holders are to have a right to redeem directly from the issuer (para 3.3). That amendment would be made later (para 3.5).
Money-changing licensees are left out (para 3.4).
The change is a new item 10 in Part 1 of the Second Schedule (para 3.5 and Annex A).
FIDReC would charge an initial onboarding fee, case fees and an annual levy. MAS and FIDReC will consult the industry on fees and implementation timelines “over the course of 2027” (paras 4.2 to 4.6).
Implications
The paper gives MAS’s reason in its own words. Payment service providers were left out when the Payment Services Act 2019 (PS Act) commenced in 2020 to ease their transition, and MAS has handled their customers’ disputes on a supervisory basis since then (para 2.4). E-wallet providers already joined FIDReC under the Shared Responsibility Framework for phishing scams. FIDReC received 416 claims against them up to 30 June 2026 and handled 141, with 99% of completed claims settled at mediation (para 2.5).
Digital payment token service is one of the regulated payment services an MPI or SPI may provide (footnote 5), so on the paper’s wording, licensed crypto service providers would be covered. The paper does not discuss crypto disputes separately. It also does not say whether FIDReC’s existing exceptions in its Terms of Reference would exclude disputes over token price movements or transfers sent to the wrong address onchain (footnote 3 points to those exceptions without listing them).
The stablecoin limb links this paper to the Payment Services Act amendments consulted on in September. A holder who cannot redeem at par would have an independent forum short of court, if the holder is an “eligible complainant”: individuals, sole proprietors, charities and small businesses (footnote 7). Institutional holders would not.
Dispute access becomes part of what the MAS label buys a retail holder of a stablecoin. The paper ties FIDReC access to the right to redeem from the issuer (para 3.3), and Hong Kong’s licensed issuers have no equivalent independent scheme (see “Elsewhere in Asia”). The benefit is prospective: no MAS-regulated stablecoin exists yet, and the paper sets no timeframe for issuers to join.
Elsewhere in Asia
The State of Play on stablecoin rules sets out the three markets. In Hong Kong, a customer with a complaint against a licensed stablecoin issuer goes first to the issuer and then to the Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA). The HKMA says it will not “adjudicate or intervene in a commercial dispute” between an issuer and its customers and cannot order compensation (HKMA). India has no stablecoin framework.
What to watch
Comments close on 30 November 2026. After that come MAS’s response, the amendment to the DRS Regulations, the industry consultation on fees and timelines during 2027, and MAS’s response to the September stablecoin consultation, which closed on 16 October 2026.