Crypto License Comparison: Country-by-Country Matrix

A crypto license comparison sets crypto-asset and VASP authorisations from different jurisdictions side by side across the attributes that actually decide where you incorporate: the regulator, the minimum capital you must hold, the time to grant, whether the licence passports across the EU, and the headline corporate tax. The grid below compares twelve regimes on those five axes, with every figure traced to a primary source.

The hard part of choosing a jurisdiction is not finding a list of countries. It is comparing them honestly, because the regimes are not built the same way. A MiCA CASP authorisation carries a clean statutory capital floor and a pan-EU passport. A Hong Kong VATP licence fixes a paid-up share-capital figure plus a rolling liquid-asset test. Switzerland publishes no single crypto-capital number at all. Comparing one column across these regimes only works if you also read the footnotes. That is what this page does: it gives you the matrix first, then explains how to read each cell, then walks the five decision axes one at a time. For the full picture of how licensing works end to end, see our complete guide to crypto licensing.

By Magnus Müller · Reviewed by Magnus Müller · Last updated: 2026-06-14

Crypto license comparison at a glance (the country matrix)

This is the page's core asset: one sourced grid covering twelve jurisdictions across regulator, regime, minimum capital, timeline, EU passport and headline corporate tax. Read it as a starting filter, not a leaderboard. Several capital cells are deliberately marked "not officially fixed" because the regulator sets them case by case, and most timelines are practitioner ranges rather than published pledges. The two columns that do the heaviest decision-making are EU passport (the structural divide) and minimum capital (the cash you must lock up).

Tax rates are PwC Worldwide Tax Summaries headline corporate-income-tax rates (accessed 2026-06-13); headline is not the same as effective. Regime, regulator and capital cells trace to the primary sources cited under each section below. For the underlying statutes per country, see our overview of crypto regulation by country.

How to read this matrix (column definitions)

Each column means something specific, and the meaning is easy to misread. Use these definitions before drawing conclusions:

• Minimum capital is money the entity must hold as own funds or paid-up share capital. It is held, not spent: it sits on the balance sheet, it is not a fee paid to the regulator.
• Timeline is the application-to-grant duration. Where a regulator publishes a service pledge it is labelled a pledge; otherwise it is a practitioner range, and real time-to-operate runs longer.
• EU passport means whether one authorisation lets you serve all 27 EU plus 3 EEA states. Only MiCA jurisdictions answer yes.
• Corporate tax is the headline national rate, not the effective rate a structured business actually pays.

Which figures are statutory vs estimated

Transparency is the point of this matrix. Four capital figures are hard statutory numbers: the MiCA Annex IV tiers (EUR 50,000 / 125,000 / 150,000), Singapore's S$250,000 base capital, and Hong Kong's HK$5,000,000 paid-up requirement. The rest are not single fixed floors. Switzerland's CHF 100,000 is a company-law minimum for any AG/GmbH, not a crypto-specific prudential floor. The UAE sets capital per regulated activity in the VARA rulebook. Gibraltar, Liechtenstein's TVTG registration and El Salvador all set capital case by case. On timelines, only Singapore (MAS, 120 business days) and Hong Kong (SFC, 15 weeks) publish a hard pledge; every other duration in the grid is an estimate. We mark these distinctions so you never compare a fixed floor against a number that does not exist.

Which countries give an EU passport for a crypto license?

The EU passport is the single most decision-relevant axis in the whole matrix. Of the twelve jurisdictions, only the MiCA states give one authorisation that passports across all 27 EU plus 3 EEA states: Estonia, Lithuania, Malta and Germany, plus Liechtenstein via the EEA from 1 February 2025. Switzerland, the UK, the UAE, Singapore, Hong Kong, Gibraltar and El Salvador each license you for that single market only, under the EU's Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation.

This divide drives the per-market economics. If your target customer base is pan-European, a single MiCA CASP authorisation is structurally cheaper than stacking national licences, even when the headline capital looks similar to a non-EU regime. If your market is the Gulf, Asia or the Americas, the EU passport buys you nothing, and a single-market licence in the right zone is the better fit. Get the passport question right and most of the jurisdiction shortlist resolves itself.

How MiCA passporting works (one license, 30 markets)

Under MiCA, a CASP authorisation granted by any one national competent authority covers the same authorised services across all 27 EU plus 3 EEA states, subject to a host-state notification procedure. You apply once, with one regulator, and serve the bloc. That is why the choice between Estonia, Lithuania, Malta and Germany is less about market access (it is the same market) and more about cost, language, banking access and how the local regulator runs its process. For the full mechanics, capital tiers and transition rules, read our MiCA CASP rules pillar. The exact host-NCA notification procedure under MiCA Art. 65 is confirmed in principle but not read line by line from the regulation here (see Open questions).

Single-market licenses (Switzerland, UK, UAE, Singapore, Hong Kong, Gibraltar, El Salvador)

A non-EU licence authorises you for that jurisdiction only. A FINMA-supervised Swiss entity, a VARA licence in Dubai, a MAS DPT licence in Singapore, an SFC VATP licence in Hong Kong, an FCA registration in the UK, a GFSC DLT authorisation in Gibraltar or a CNAD licence in El Salvador each grants market access to one country, with no cross-border passport. For a business serving customers in many regions, that can mean multiple licences and multiple supervisors. The trade-off is that several of these regimes offer lighter capital, faster pledges or lower headline tax than the MiCA route, which is exactly why the matrix exists: there is no universally cheaper or faster regime once you fix your customer geography.

How much minimum capital does each crypto license require?

Capital is the heaviest attribute after the passport question, because it is cash you must raise and lock up before you trade. The figures are not comparable across regimes without their flags. The MiCA states pin a clean, harmonised floor; the non-MiCA regimes each define capital differently; and five jurisdictions do not publish a single fixed number at all.

MiCA capital tiers explained (Class 1, 2, 3)

Across Estonia, Lithuania, Malta and Germany, MiCA Annex IV sets three capital tiers by service class: EUR 50,000 for Class 1, EUR 125,000 for Class 2 (adding custody or exchange services), and EUR 150,000 for Class 3 (adding operation of a trading platform). The binding requirement is not simply the floor. Under MiCA Art. 67, a CASP must hold the higher of the relevant tier or one quarter of the prior year's fixed overheads, as set out in the MiCA regulation text. So a larger firm with heavy fixed costs may need to hold materially more than EUR 150,000. This is the cleanest, most comparable capital rule in the matrix, which is part of why MiCA jurisdictions are easy to evaluate against each other.

Infographic 1 anchor: minimum-capital comparison. The MiCA tiers (EUR 50,000 / 125,000 / 150,000), Singapore's S$250,000 and Hong Kong's HK$5,000,000 are the four hard figures; Switzerland, the UAE, Gibraltar, Liechtenstein and El Salvador sit in a separate "case-by-case / not officially fixed" lane.

Non-MiCA capital rules (Singapore, Hong Kong, Switzerland)

Outside MiCA, each regime sets capital its own way. Singapore fixes a base capital of S$250,000 for a Major Payment Institution or DTSP under the Payment Services Act 2019. Hong Kong requires a VATP to hold at least HK$5,000,000 in paid-up share capital, plus a liquid-capital requirement and liquid assets equal to twelve months of operating expenses, under the SFC VATP Guidelines. Switzerland has no single crypto figure: an AG or GmbH needs CHF 100,000 company-law share capital, the FINMA FinTech licence caps public deposits at CHF 100m, and a full banking licence requires materially more. The Hong Kong HK$5,000,000 figure is cited via the SFC Guidelines through secondary legal summaries and should be checked against the official Guidelines PDF before being quoted as a hard number (see Open questions). For how these capital figures sit alongside application and supervisory fees, see how to compare licensing fees by country.

Where capital is set case-by-case (Gibraltar, Liechtenstein, El Salvador, UAE)

Four regimes do not publish a single statutory floor, and treating their capital as a fixed number is a mistake. Gibraltar's GFSC sets capital proportionately to the business under its nine regulatory principles, with no fixed floor, under the DLT framework in force since 1 January 2018. Liechtenstein's TVTG registration has no single fixed floor, depending on the TT-service role and collateral rules; under the MiCA route the Annex IV tiers apply, per the FMA. El Salvador's CNAD assesses capital adequacy by project scope; the roughly US$2,000 figure sometimes quoted is company charter capital for entity registration, not a CNAD prudential floor, and is an estimate only. The UAE's VARA sets capital per regulated activity in its rulebook, so there is no single Dubai number, per VARA. These cells stay flagged in the matrix; we never convert them into a comparative bar.

How long does it take to get a crypto license?

Timelines vary widely, and most published numbers are estimates rather than guarantees. Only two regulators in this matrix publish a hard service pledge. Singapore's MAS pledges up to 120 business days for a Major Payment Institution under the Payment Services Act 2019, and the Hong Kong SFC pledges up to 15 weeks for a VATP under its VATP framework, after the revamped, expedited external assessment introduced on 16 January 2025. Everything else is a range: Switzerland 6–12 months (FINMA bills time-based with no fixed clock), the MiCA states roughly 3–6 months (Germany around 6 months), the UAE roughly 6–12 months for the full process (4–7 months from initial submission in straightforward cases), the UK several months, and Gibraltar, Liechtenstein and El Salvador several months to around 3–6 months.

The two regulator pledges (Singapore MAS and Hong Kong SFC)

Among the twelve, only MAS and the SFC publish a hard processing pledge: up to 120 business days and up to 15 weeks respectively. A pledge is the regulator's service standard for its own review, not a promise that you will be operating by then. Every other duration in the grid is a practitioner or secondary estimate, which is why the matrix labels them as ranges.

Why real time-to-operate runs longer than the review clock

From our practice, the regulator's review window is only one part of the calendar. Before and around it sit company incorporation, opening operational and client banking, building local substance such as resident officers and offices, and assembling the AML and compliance documentation the application itself depends on. These steps routinely add months on top of any review clock, and banking access in particular can be the longest single step. Plan to time-to-operate, not to time-to-grant, and treat even a pledged review window as the middle of the project rather than the end.

Which jurisdiction has the lowest corporate tax for a crypto company?

On headline rate, the UAE is lowest among the twelve at 9% on profit above AED 375,000 (0% below), followed by Liechtenstein at 12.5%, Gibraltar at 15% (from 1 July 2024), Hong Kong at 16.5% (a two-tiered 8.25% on the first HK$2m), and Lithuania and Singapore at 17%, per PwC's corporate tax rates. Switzerland's federal rate is 8.5% with a combined effective rate of roughly 11.9–20.5% by canton. The higher headline rates are Estonia 22%, the UK 25%, El Salvador 30%, Germany around 30% effective, and Malta 35%. Headline rate is not effective rate, so tax should never decide a jurisdiction in isolation.

Headline vs effective tax (Estonia, Malta, Switzerland, Germany nuances)

The headline numbers hide as much as they reveal, all per PwC. Estonia's 22% only applies on distribution, so undistributed profit is effectively untaxed until it leaves the company. Malta's 35% headline is reduced by a shareholder refund system that can cut the effective rate sharply. Switzerland's combined rate swings between roughly 11.9% and 20.5% depending on the canton, so a Zug entity and a higher-tax canton are not the same proposition. Germany's roughly 15.825% corporate income tax including the solidarity surcharge is layered with municipal trade tax to reach an effective rate near 30%. Weigh tax against capital, passporting, banking access and substance cost, not on the headline alone.

How to choose the right jurisdiction for your crypto license

There is no single best country, and any page that crowns one is selling, not comparing. The right jurisdiction is whichever one fits your activity, your target customer geography, your available capital, your banking access and your substance budget. The matrix narrows the field; these three questions narrow it further. For a broader cross-silo view of the trade-offs, see how to compare jurisdictions for a crypto license, and if budget is the dominant constraint, start with the cheapest jurisdictions.

Match the regime to your business model (exchange, custody, advisory)

Activity drives the licence class, so fix the activity first:

• Trading platform / exchange: MiCA Class 3 (EUR 150,000), a Hong Kong VATP, or a VARA Exchange licence in Dubai.
• Wallet / custody: MiCA Class 2 (EUR 125,000), or the equivalent custody authorisation in a non-EU regime.
• Advisory / transfer / reception of orders: the lightest tier, MiCA Class 1 (EUR 50,000) or a comparable narrow permission elsewhere.

The same business model maps to a different licence and a different capital floor in each regime, which is why the comparison only becomes meaningful once you have named the activity.

When the EU passport changes the math

For a firm targeting customers across the EU, the passport quietly rewrites the cost comparison. A single MiCA CASP authorisation, even at the Class 3 floor of EUR 150,000, serves all 27 EU plus 3 EEA states from one supervisor. The non-EU alternative is to license separately in each target market, multiplying capital, supervisory and substance costs. So a MiCA jurisdiction can be cheaper per market than a single-market regime with a lower headline figure, once you count every country you actually want to serve.

Beyond the matrix: banking access, substance and ongoing cost

The matrix shows the capital you hold and the regulator you face, but two of the largest real costs sit outside it. Banking access decides whether a licence is usable at all, and it varies sharply by jurisdiction and business profile. Local substance, meaning resident officers, an office and genuine operations, is increasingly required and adds ongoing cost. And the running cost of a licence, supervisory fees, audit, compliance staffing, often exceeds the one-time capital. Build these into the comparison before committing; our cost guide lets you compare licensing fees by country in more detail.

Have questions about your specific situation? Book a free 15-minute discovery call with our licensed advisers, no commitment. Book a Call

2026 transition caveats that change the comparison

A crypto license comparison is not static, and several of the "easy" historic routes are gone or sunsetting in 2026. MiCA became fully applicable on 30 December 2024, with CASP rules in force. Liechtenstein's MiCA route applies from 1 February 2025. The Hong Kong SFC introduced its expedited 15-week VATP assessment from 16 January 2025. Two larger shifts change the ranking outright, covered below.

VASP-to-CASP sunset (Malta and Estonia, 1 July 2026)

MiCA grandfathered pre-existing national licences for a transitional period, but that window is closing. In Malta and Estonia the legacy national regimes are invalid after 1 July 2026, after which only a MiCA CASP authorisation is valid, per the MiCA regulation and the MFSA. For new entrants this is simpler, not harder: there is no point chasing a legacy registration, so applicants go straight for the CASP. It does mean that older comparisons treating an Estonian VASP registration as a cheap shortcut are out of date.

Switzerland's FinTech-licence reform (~2027)

Switzerland's FinTech licence is slated to be replaced around 2027 by new "Payment Instrument Institution" and "Crypto-Institution" categories. This is a forward-looking signal rather than a present rule, but it matters for anyone planning a Swiss structure now: the licence you apply for today may be reframed within the project horizon. Treat the Swiss row as current-as-dated and confirm the live position with FINMA before committing.

Liechtenstein joins MiCA via the EEA (1 February 2025)

Liechtenstein is in the EEA, not the EU, and its TVTG "Blockchain Act" registration is national. EU/EEA passporting comes only via MiCA, which applies in Liechtenstein from 1 February 2025, per the FMA. The practical takeaway is that a TVTG-only registration does not by itself passport: to serve the wider EU/EEA market from Liechtenstein, you need the MiCA route, and the Annex IV capital tiers then apply.