Logo
Report contents
← The Crypto Livability Index

LATAM · Frontier

Cuba

Crypto Livability Index 2025·data to 31 Dec 2025

Livability rank
#10 / 79
Rails rank
#62 / 79
Need shift
▲ +52

Scoreboard

Five pillars, then the 22 sub-pillars scored 0 to 4. Empty sub-scores are held out of the total, not zeroed.

Five pillars
P1 Access3 / 16
P2 Regulation11 / 20
P3 Spending5 / 20
P4 Infrastructure8 / 12
P5 Community5 / 16
22 sub-pillars (0–4)
1
P1.1
Exchange access
not scored
P1.2
P2P liquidity
0
P1.3
ATM density
1
P1.4
On/off-ramp friction
1
P1.5
Stablecoin access
3
P2.1
Legal status
1
P2.2
Tax treatment
2
P2.3
Income legality
3
P2.4
KYC burden
2
P2.5
Regulatory trajectory
1
P3.1
Gift cards
2
P3.2
Direct merchants
0
P3.3
Crypto cards
0
P3.4
Utility bills
2
P3.5
Connectivity
3
P4.1
Internet penetration
2
P4.2
Smartphone penetration
3
P4.4
Remittance corridor
double-edged
0
P5.1
Meetups and events
3
P5.2
Crypto media
0
P5.3
Social sentiment
2
P5.4
Developer density

The number behind the rank

Raw capability score32 / 84
P2P liquidity bonus (tie-breaker)+1
Inflation 80% · unbanked 65% · remittances 12% GDP · capital controls 0.9 · sanctions 1 CNI 0.806
Need multiplier×1.709
Livability score0.651

Raw 32/84 = 0.381 capability. Crypto-Necessity Index 0.81, from five components: inflation 80% (three-year average 2023 to 2025, at the 50% clamp), unbanked 65% of adults, remittances 12% of GDP, capital-control intensity 0.90 (Heritage 2026 derived; KAOPEN excludes this country), sanctions exposure 1. Need multiplier ×1.71. Livability score 0.651, rank #10 of 79.

Three findings

Cuba carries the highest Crypto-Necessity Index in the entire 79-country index, 0.81

The need multiplier of ×1.71 lifts a near-bottom capability score, raw 32/84 or 0.381, all the way to livability rank #10, a swing of 52 places. An estimated 65% of adults are unbanked, remittances run an estimated 12% of GDP, and full US sanctions exposure stacks on top. This is the index's clearest case of extreme need straining thin rails into a survival system.

Access is the worst pillar in Cuba and one of the weakest anywhere: P1 scores just 3/16

There are zero crypto ATMs, no Tier-1 cards (OFAC sanctions exclude MetaMask, RedotPay and every major Visa or Mastercard crypto-card provider), and the only working channel is peer-to-peer (P2P, person-to-person trades with no central intermediary). QvaPay, with 500,000-plus accounts, routes a QUSD-to-USDT workaround around Tether's issuer-side geoblock; BitRemesas and informal Telegram desks carry the rest, serving an estimated 100,000 to 200,000 active users.

Crypto became the remittance rail by elimination, not adoption

Western Union was re-sanctioned in January 2025; formal remittances collapsed about 70% from the 2019 peak, with GAESA raising only $82M in 2024. Families now send Bitcoin or USDT (a US-dollar-pegged stablecoin) converted to local vouchers, and a documented Lightning-based "sovereign bank" using the Cashu protocol lets Havana businesses transact offline through 20-hour blackouts. Spending capability stays bottom-tier (P3 5/20: cards 0, utility bills 0), so the rail moves value in but barely converts it to everyday purchasing power.

In one line

"When Western Union ceased to exist, families turned to Bitcoin and USDT because nothing else was left. Crypto in Cuba is not an investment; it is the only pipe through which help still reaches home."

Watch in 2026

Trajectory 2/4, stable to mildly liberalising under tight state control. On 10 April 2025 the Central Bank of Cuba authorised its first 10 firms to settle international payments in crypto, the first concrete step since study began in 2021; mining was legalised in 2025 under renewable-energy and 5MW-cap rules; and a peso-pegged stablecoin was announced. These are narrow, statist channels, not retail licences, and the opening runs against a US-sanctions overlay. Post-cutoff (2026): watch whether the authorised firms begin operating in practice and whether the announced peso stablecoin moves from plan to issuance.

Data vintage: 31 December 2025. Flagged estimate: the unbanked input is a documented gap-fill (no uniform Findex value for this country); bounded and disclosed in Appendix A. Flagged estimate: the remittance input is a documented gap-fill; bounded and disclosed in Appendix A. Flagged estimate: the capital-controls input is Heritage-derived (KAOPEN excludes this country); disclosed in Appendix A.
Regional neighbours
Data vintage 31 December 2025 · CLI vv1.3 · Genghis Research · CC BY 4.0