The Monetary Authority of Singapore’s current Financial Institutions Directory returns 38 institutions when filtered for Digital Payment Token Service activity. Every result in that view is listed as a Major Payment Institution. For Southeast Asia’s digital-asset market, the snapshot shows a sizeable regulated operating base in Singapore, but it does not say how many applications were approved, rejected, withdrawn or remain pending.
What the directory count actually covers
The directory includes specialist digital-asset businesses alongside broader financial-services groups. That mix matters to companies choosing custody, exchange, payment or treasury partners because an institution’s legal name, licence status and permitted activity can differ from the consumer-facing brand or the full range of services it offers elsewhere. Monetary Authority of Singapore
The figure should be read precisely. MAS labels the filter as Digital Payment Token Service and shows 38 results under the Payments sector and Major Payment Institution status. The page also warns that a financial institution may hold multiple licences, so licence totals in the directory can be higher than the number of institutions returned.
Why licence scope still matters
A major-payment-institution licence is a regulatory status, not a blanket endorsement of every product or token. Businesses still need to verify which Singapore entity is contracting with them, what activity is covered, how customer assets and transaction data are handled, and whether a product sits inside or outside the regulated service perimeter.
What the snapshot cannot establish
Operational controls remain part of the market-entry burden. MAS Notice PSN05 applies technology-risk requirements to payment-services licensees that provide digital-payment-token services. The notice defines critical systems and relevant incidents, tying licensing to continuing expectations for system availability, security and customer-information protection rather than a one-time approval event.
The directory does not publish an application denominator or explain the status of unsuccessful and incomplete applications. SEA Connect therefore does not repeat the separate claim that nearly 300 firms applied, and it does not infer that every non-listed firm was rejected. A defensible approval-rate calculation would require a dated official breakdown using consistent definitions.
Source note
This is a current regulatory-market snapshot based on an MAS directory page last updated on 28 July 2026, not breaking news about a licence award. The count can change as MAS updates the directory, so businesses should check the live record and the named institution’s entry before making compliance, procurement or customer-risk decisions.