Economic

The Central Bank of Iran has introduced new restrictions on stablecoin transactions, capping annual purchases at $5,000 and total holdings at $10,000 for both individuals and legal entities. The regulation, which primarily affects widely used tokens such as Tether (USDT), will take effect one month from now.

According to Jadeh Makhsus News Agency, Asghar Abolhasani, Deputy Governor of the Central Bank, confirmed that under the October 2025 resolution of the High Council, each user—identified through a unique national ID code—may purchase no more than $5,000 worth of stablecoins within a year across all licensed crypto brokerage platforms. In addition, users will not be allowed to hold more than $10,000 worth of stablecoins at any given time.

Abolhasani emphasized that current holders of stablecoins will be given a one-month transition period to align their balances with the new rules. After this period, compliance will be mandatory for all traders and users. He further underlined that once the resolution is published on the Central Bank’s official platform, its provisions will be binding across the market.

This move signals a tightening of regulatory oversight in Iran’s digital asset sector, aimed at controlling capital flows and enhancing transparency in stablecoin transactions.

The Central Bank of Iran’s latest draft regulations emphasize the introduction of a “trusted custodian” and mandatory Proof of Reserves (PoR) as mechanisms to prevent short-selling and improve transparency. However, market participants consider these clauses among the riskiest parts of the proposal.

The draft framework paints a stringent picture of the future of Iran’s crypto market: high initial capital requirements, mandatory partnership structures (Tazamoni), custodians to verify reserves, and full oversight of transactions. While policymakers present the framework as a step toward risk reduction and transparency, private-sector stakeholders argue that it effectively sidelines startups and consolidates the market under banks. According to them, the outcome would not be stronger user protection, but forced capital flight and reduced innovation.

According to Jadeh Makhsus News Agency, the publication of the draft “Regulations for Crypto Brokers” has sparked strong reactions. Many exchanges argue that the conditions outlined can realistically be met by fewer than 5% of operators.

Industry players note that Article 12 requires a minimum initial capital of 50 billion tomans for Type-1 brokerages and 100 billion tomans for exchange platforms—thresholds unattainable for most companies. This means that roughly 95% of existing exchanges would be forced to exit the market.

Beyond the capital requirements, the framework also introduces heavy obligations such as a 50% guarantee and restrictive legal structures, leaving room only for large players. Critics warn that these provisions amount to “the elimination of startups.” They also argue that burdensome collateral requirements would significantly reduce profitability, further suppressing competition and innovation.

Managerial experience rules also pose challenges. The draft requires at least two years of relevant professional experience for directors, while legal partners must maintain a debt ratio below 0.5%. Such strict criteria, stakeholders warn, could shrink the domestic market, pushing users toward foreign or unlicensed platforms. This shift would not only undermine transparency and oversight but also accelerate the outflow of capital from the country.

According to Jadeh Makhsous News Agency, risk tolerance in investing in small, early-stage startups has declined, while the gap between accelerators and venture capital (VC) firms has widened. Experts argue that despite their limited capital, micro VCs can prevent the dissolution of young companies and play a significant role in advancing the innovation cycle. However, securing follow-on funding and achieving successful exits remain their primary challenges.

A report by Peyvast highlights micro VCs as emerging players in the investment and startup ecosystem. Positioned between angel investors, accelerators, and larger VC funds, micro VCs typically provide seed and early-stage financing to support startups in their initial growth phase.

Defined as smaller-scale venture capital funds with assets ranging from $10 to $50 million, micro VCs have grown by over 120% in recent years. Industry experts emphasize their value not only in financing but also in contributing domain expertise, decision-making support, and operational guidance throughout the collaboration. Their involvement often extends beyond funding to networking, entrepreneurial partnerships, and sourcing innovative ideas. Still, they face hurdles such as attracting top talent, securing capital for later stages, ensuring profitable exits, and maintaining independence.

Micro VCs as Intermediary Investors

In today’s volatile economic climate, with shrinking investment volumes in technology startups, the role of micro VCs has become increasingly important. As traditional VCs focus more on mid-to-late-stage startups, early-stage ventures face mounting challenges in market entry and survival. Mehdi Eskouei, Deputy CEO of TrigUp, stresses the importance of micro VCs in filling this funding gap. He views them not merely as financiers but as strategic partners for promising teams in Iran’s innovation ecosystem.

Globally, micro VCs dominate seed and early-stage investments, while larger funds tend to concentrate on Series A and beyond. Micro VCs, with their ability to inject smaller amounts of capital quickly, provide a vital gateway to growth. Though their financial performance (measured by IRR and multiples) is often slightly lower than traditional VCs, their agility, hands-on support, and willingness to back unconventional sectors strengthen their position in the entrepreneurial ecosystem.

Micro VCs often distinguish themselves by their level of care and engagement. Unlike traditional VCs, representatives from micro VCs frequently integrate with startup teams, participating in governance, HR, sales, and marketing strategies. Eskouei notes that such collaboration goes beyond financial input, offering continuous monitoring and mentorship throughout the partnership. While exits carry inherent risks, he argues that they are less risky than accelerator exits, as micro VCs typically work with more mature teams.

Technology Takes Priority

Data shows that nearly 40% of micro VC funding flows into the information and communications technology (ICT) sector, particularly in areas such as artificial intelligence, cloud computing, and mobile applications.

According to Yazdanpanah, Head of Investment at Golrang Ventures, micro VCs prioritize startups capable of launching minimum viable products (MVPs) and entering markets with relatively modest funding. He points to AI as a key driver in lowering development costs, reducing reliance on large-scale capital, and encouraging smaller investments. Consequently, sectors like fintech, applied AI, SaaS, digital health, edtech, and on-demand services stand out as prime candidates for micro VC funding.

The strategic direction of a micro VC often mirrors the background of its founding institution. For example, a micro VC backed by a banking conglomerate is likely to fund startups aligned with the needs of the financial industry.

Although the concept of micro VCs remains relatively underexplored compared to traditional VC models, global statistics indicate robust growth in their presence and activity. In light of shrinking startup investment pipelines and warnings about diminishing opportunities for new businesses, experts argue that strengthening the role of micro VCs could prove crucial in sustaining entrepreneurial innovation.