How the DAI Readiness Score™ is built.
A single, comparable 0–100 measure of jurisdictional readiness for regulated digital asset activity — built from primary sources, scored across seven weighted pillars, recalculated quarterly, and overseen by analysts.
Seven pillars, one index.
Each jurisdiction is scored 0–100 on every pillar using a published indicator set (34 indicators in v2.1). Pillar scores are combined using fixed weights into the composite Readiness Score. Weights reflect what supervision practitioners told us matters most for safe market entry — AML and the legal framework carry the most weight.
Regulatory Framework
18%Existence, scope and maturity of dedicated digital asset legislation, secondary rules, and supervisory guidance.
Licensing Infrastructure
14%Availability of VASP authorisation regimes, clarity of eligibility criteria, and observed time-to-licence.
AML Compliance
18%FATF Recommendation 15 transposition, Travel Rule implementation, STR regimes and supervisory enforcement of AML rules.
Consumer Protection
12%Disclosure standards, custody and segregation requirements, complaint handling and redress mechanisms.
Tax Clarity
10%Formal guidance on the tax treatment of digital asset gains, transactions, and reporting obligations.
Enforcement Capacity
14%Track record and institutional capability of regulators to investigate and sanction non-compliant actors.
Innovation Environment
14%Sandboxes, pilot regimes, CBDC research, and policy openness to responsible innovation.
Weighting rationale
Weights are reviewed annually with the Research Advisory Board and held fixed between versions so scores remain comparable over time.
Primary sources only. Recalculated quarterly.
Legislation, official gazettes, regulator notices, FATF reports, central bank directives, and court records. No secondary media is used for scoring.
Q1 · Q2 · Q3 · Q4 score releases, with out-of-cycle updates within ten business days of major regulatory events.
Each indicator maps to one pillar and carries a documented scoring rubric published in the methodology PDF.
Every score passes human review.
Quarterly data refresh
Every pillar indicator is re-scored each quarter against the latest primary-source evidence — legislation, gazettes, supervisory notices, and FATF mutual evaluation reports.
Dual-analyst review
Two analysts score each jurisdiction independently. Divergence greater than five points on any pillar triggers a structured reconciliation review.
External peer review
Methodology and weighting changes are reviewed by former regulators and compliance practitioners before adoption. Material changes are versioned and published.
Event-driven updates
Major regulatory events — new laws, enforcement landmarks, FATF listing changes — trigger out-of-cycle re-scores within ten business days.
Every data point is labelled.
Corroborated by two or more primary sources and reviewed by an analyst within the last quarter.
Single primary source or pending secondary corroboration; suitable for directional analysis.
Source change detected or item flagged by verification systems; analyst re-review in progress.
Confidence labels are surfaced on country profiles, the regulatory feed, and the enforcement database, and flow through to AI-generated briefings.