The ranking
| Rank | Jurisdiction | Why it ranks here | Metric |
|---|---|---|---|
| #1 | Panama | No specific crypto licence required for many models. | 1–3 weeks |
| #2 | Georgia (FIZ) | Single administrator, published checklist. | 4–6 weeks |
| #3 | El Salvador (DASP) | CNAD operates a clear single-track regime. | 4–8 weeks |
| #4 | Canada (MSB) | Auto-registration with FINTRAC, no capital test. | 8–10 weeks |
| #5 | Switzerland (VQF SRO) | SRO membership, no FINMA gatekeeper. | 2–3 months |
How the comparison was built
The comparison is built on practising-counsel data: actual application timelines from filed engagements, regulator-fee invoices, capital lock-up amounts, and post-licence supervision burden in years one and two. Where official sources publish data, we link to them with rel="nofollow"; where data comes from practice, the line is annotated.
Featured jurisdictions
- Panama
- Georgia
- El Salvador
Open the relevant jurisdiction page
Frequently asked questions
Which is the easiest crypto license to obtain?
Easiest is not the same as cheapest. The easiest crypto licenses to obtain combine a clear single-regulator path, English-language counsel, no capital adequacy review and a published checklist of documents. Panama, Georgia and El Salvador top that list.
Why these jurisdictions?
Each of the featured jurisdictions has been ranked on a composite of regulator credibility, capital, timeline, banking access and ongoing supervision burden. Panama, Georgia, El Salvador lead the ranking.
How recent is this comparison?
We refresh comparison pages quarterly. Capital figures, timelines and regulator approaches move year on year — see the ‟last updated” line at the bottom of each page.
Can you produce a custom comparison for my project?
Yes. Send a short brief on the model, target customers and capital. We come back with a tailored shortlist within 24 hours — no obligation.
Last updated: 2026-04. Refreshed quarterly.