Subscribe to CryptoRDB to access the regulatory and ranking insights provided by our proprietary crypto ranking methodology that takes into account various finance, securities, tax and ease-of-business factors of a jurisdiction.
The world’s most comprehensive Cryptocurrency Regulatory Database
Providing insight from leading cryptocurrency experts, and fast access to finance, tax, and securities regulation of cryptocurrencies around the world.
CryptoRDB providers deep commercial and regulatory insight from advisors with top-tier commercial, government and academic experience
Our proprietary methodology
The Regulatory Rating is based on our experts’ assessment of the commercial impact of various key areas of law that impact cryptocurrency businesses (like ICOs, exchanges, and ongoing cryptocurrency businesses).
The Regulatory Ratings are based on the weighted aggregate of a number of measures (the long-term policy approach, and the approach of enforcement agencies play the biggest role in shaping the regulatory environment for cryptocurrency businesses, so are weighted more heavily).
Database subscribers can access a breakdown rating for each component, along with detailed information about key regulatory issues in that jurisdiction.
This category assesses the approach of Government, regulators and policymakers in that jurisdiction. The approach and sentiment of senior government officials has a very significant impact on the future regulatory environment, but the policy approach also informs how regulators are likely to deal with crypto businesses on a day-to-day basis.
This score is heavily based on our experts’ insights from participating in Government Inquiries, Consultations, and Committees in cryptocurrency, where the foundations of regulatory frameworks are considered.
This category assesses how favourable the approach of key regulatory agencies has been for cryptocurrency businesses.
It considers, for example, whether regulators have taken a collaborative or consultative approach with the crypto industry, in which regulatory obligations have been outlined before being enforced. A consultative approach allows crypto businesses reasonable time and warning to comply, and provides them with an opportunity to discuss desirable legislative changes or regulatory issues to indicate whether legal changes may be appropriate.
At the other end of the spectrum, some regulators have taken an aggressive approach, and sought to retrospectively apply penalties where crypto businesses had been unsure of their regulatory obligations.
More highly rated jurisdictions in this category have typically taken a more consultative approach, or have otherwise provided crypto businesses with reasonable warning and clarity as to their obligations, and how regulations will be applied.
This category assesses overall compliance costs that are likely to apply to crypto businesses. It takes into account, for instance, the cost of: establishing corporate or other entities, filing tax returns, operating and maintaining an entity, and other standard regulatory compliance requirements.
More highly rated jurisdictions have lower typical compliance costs.
The application of many jurisdictions’ laws to cryptocurrency is unclear, and many regulators have been very slow to issue guidance as to whether or how laws may apply. This category assesses the level of regulatory certainty provided to crypto businesses in relation to their activities. It includes an assessment of whether key regulators have provided timely and detailed regulatory guidance to help businesses understand their obligations.
This category also assesses whether (and how significantly) regulators have changed their formal position on regulatory issues, where this has caused uncertainty for crypto businesses.
More highly rated jurisdictions have greater levels of regulatory certainty.
Many jurisdictions’ regulatory regimes provide certain types of business or activity with ‘special treatment’. This can include ‘regulatory sandboxes’ for start-ups and FinTech companies in which exemptions from more onerous regulatory requirements (like financial/securities/corporations law requirements) can be obtained. Other opportunities can include significant tax reductions for entities conducting research and development; or more cost-effective, accessible means of protecting intellectual property.
This category assesses whether these opportunities exist, how significant they are, and how likely many crypto businesses would be to obtain them.
More highly rated jurisdictions have more potential regulatory opportunities.
This category assesses the onerousness of financial and corporations law requirements that are likely to apply to ICOs and other crypto businesses. It includes an assessment of whether ICOs are likely to constitute an issue of securities, and how onerous the requirements would be to comply with rules governing the issue of securities.
More highly rated jurisdictions are less likely to treat ICO tokens as securities, and have generally lower financial/corporations regulatory requirements in relation to the use, exchange, or issue of ICOs.
This category assesses the competitiveness of a jurisdiction’s tax regime, and the implications for crypto businesses.
This consists of an assessment of the general competitiveness of that jurisdiction’s corporate tax, income tax, and VAT rates (if applicable). This category also includes an assessment of whether ICO proceeds are likely to constitute taxable income, whether there is a VAT/GST, whether other taxes are likely to apply to crypto businesses, and whether tax exemptions apply to crypto trading/investing/use (for instance, VAT exemptions for using cryptocurrency as payment, or ‘personal use’ capital gains tax exemptions).
More highly rated jurisdictions are likely to impose lower taxes on crypto activity based there (although this may be because of a lower tax rate, or a number of potential exemptions that could apply).
This category assesses whether anti-money laundering / anti-terror funding laws apply (and if so, their onerousness and penalties for breaches). It also assesses other similar money law requirements, and how onerous and complex their requirements are.
Higher ratings mean that they requirements are less onerous, complex, or extensive.