Chapters

The Crypto Livability Index

2.1 One index, two questions

The Crypto Livability Index scores 79 countries on how viable it is to live on cryptocurrency: to receive it, hold it, and spend it as everyday money. Twenty-two sub-pillars, each on an integer scale from 0 to 4, cover market access, the legal and regulatory framework, real-world spendability, digital infrastructure, and the community ecosystem; twenty-one of them sum to the capability score, and one, P2P liquidity, is scored only as a tie-break bonus held out of the total (section 2.2). Every score reflects the state of the world on 31 December 2025, verified country by country against the documentary record (Appendix A).

The index publishes two rankings because "where is crypto most livable?" is really two questions.

Table 1, the rails ranking, answers the first: where is the crypto environment best, full stop? It is the unweighted sum of 21 sub-pillars, a capability score out of 84. Developed economies win it, and they should: they have the exchanges, the cards, the legal clarity, and the infrastructure. Table 2, the livability ranking, answers the second: where could someone realistically switch to living on crypto, and where do people already need to? It reweights the same capability score by the Crypto Necessity Index (CNI), a five-component measure of how much a population depends on alternatives to its own financial system: inflation, unbanked share, remittance dependence, capital controls, and sanctions. A country at the median of need keeps roughly its capability rank; a country where the fiat system is failing rises; a wealthy country where crypto is a hobby falls.

Three findings frame everything in this chapter:

Switzerland has the world's best crypto environment (75/84), but Argentina is the world's crypto-livability capital. Once need enters the equation, Argentina's combination of near-top-tier rails (69/84, ranked 6th on rails) and a population with every reason to use them puts it first, ahead of El Salvador.
Spending is no longer the bottleneck in the developed world. Seven of the rails top ten post a perfect 20/20 on spending rails. The frontier of crypto livability has moved from "can I pay?" to "may I, and at what cost?": the binding constraints are now regulatory friction and tax treatment.
Nowhere on Earth can you legally buy crypto with local money and no identity check. The top band of the KYC sub-pillar (know your customer: the identity verification platforms require at onboarding) is empty across all 79 countries, a quiet milestone in the era of the FATF Travel Rule (the Financial Action Task Force's standard requiring identity information to travel with crypto transfers)¹ and a finding that surprises almost everyone who reads it.

2.2 How to read the scores

Each sub-pillar has a written 0-to-4 rubric, applied identically to all 79 countries; higher always means more livable on crypto. Most rubrics are absolute (a brand count, a penetration percentage, a legal test); four are quintile-based where no natural thresholds exist. Every score passed a three-layer verification: a baseline from the index's working dataset, an independent model-assisted re-derivation, and a human ruling against primary sources, bucket by bucket. Two principles governed corrections: do not penalise a country on a ban citation without checking what residents actually do, and do not reward licensing infrastructure that is not consumer usage. The full rubrics, process, aggregation design, and limitations are in Appendix A; the per-country evidence is summarised in the country profiles of Appendix B.

Two scores carry standing interpretive warnings. The KYC sub-pillar is inverted (higher = freer). And the remittance sub-pillar is double-edged: a high crypto share of remittances is a capability in Table 1 and a need signal in Table 2, because it correlates with sanctions, inflation, and capital controls. Both warnings repeat wherever those scores are quoted.

One sub-pillar, P2P liquidity, is scored but deliberately excluded from the totals. The reason is statistical and worth a box.

Method box: the P2P bonus. P2P market depth correlates strongly with need (+0.49 with the CNI, +0.50 with capital controls) and barely at all with the rest of the capability score (roughly zero). Summing it into Raw would smuggle need into the capability measure, and Table 2 would then count it twice when it multiplies by the need multiplier. It is published per country as a tie-breaker and a diagnostic: where P2P depth is high and everything else is low, informal demand is outrunning formal infrastructure.

2.3 Table 1: the rails ranking

Capability out of 84: the unweighted sum of 21 sub-pillars. P1 access /16, P2 regulation /20, P3 spending /20, P4 infrastructure /12, P5 ecosystem /16. The P2P bonus is reported separately and breaks ties.²

#	Country	P1 /16	P2 /20	P3 /20	P4 /12	P5 /16	Raw /84	P2P bonus
1	Switzerland	16	16	20	8	15	75	0
2	Canada	14	13	20	8	16	71	1
3	USA	15	13	20	8	15	71	1
4	Australia	14	13	20	8	15	70	1
5	Germany	14	14	20	7	15	70	1
6	Argentina	12	17	18	11	11	69	3
7	Italy	14	13	20	7	14	68	1
8	Netherlands	14	14	18	8	14	68	1
9	Brazil	12	13	20	8	14	67	4
10	UAE	12	16	17	8	14	67	0
11	New Zealand	14	13	18	8	13	66	0
12	Poland	14	12	18	7	14	65	2
13	Czechia	14	14	16	8	13	65	1
14	Portugal	10	13	19	8	15	65	1
15	Singapore	11	13	19	8	14	65	1
16	Spain	14	12	20	7	12	65	1
17	Romania	14	13	19	7	11	64	1
18	France	10	12	20	7	14	63	1
19	South Africa	13	13	18	6	12	62	3
20	El Salvador	16	17	18	5	6	62	1
21	UK	10	12	16	8	16	62	1
22	Philippines	13	10	19	9	10	61	4
23	Mexico	12	11	18	9	11	61	3
24	Georgia	14	16	14	8	8	60	1
25	Sweden	11	11	19	8	11	60	1
26	Greece	12	14	19	7	7	59	1
27	Hong Kong	14	15	12	8	10	59	1
28	Ukraine	12	11	14	10	11	58	4
29	Malaysia	10	16	12	8	12	58	2
30	South Korea	10	14	12	8	14	58	1
31	Cyprus	13	13	14	8	10	58	0
32	Indonesia	12	15	13	6	11	57	4
33	Thailand	10	16	12	8	11	57	3
34	Israel	13	13	13	8	10	57	2
35	Ireland	10	12	17	8	10	57	0
36	Finland	12	12	14	8	10	56	0
37	Malta	10	14	14	8	10	56	0
38	Vietnam	9	15	10	8	13	55	4
39	Colombia	11	13	15	7	9	55	3
40	Nigeria	10	12	13	5	14	54	4
41	Turkey	12	13	13	7	9	54	4
42	Taiwan	10	14	10	8	12	54	1
43	India	10	9	13	7	14	53	4
44	Estonia	10	12	14	8	9	53	0
45	Chile	11	13	14	7	7	52	1
46	Lithuania	10	10	14	8	10	52	0
47	Kenya	11	15	10	4	11	51	3
48	Japan	10	10	12	7	12	51	1
49	Panama	14	13	12	6	5	50	0
50	Kazakhstan	10	13	9	8	7	47	2
51	Bahrain	11	14	11	8	3	47	0
52	Russia	9	12	3	11	11	46	4
53	Peru	11	13	9	6	7	46	3
54	Ghana	9	15	9	7	6	46	2
55	Hungary	8	8	13	7	9	45	1
56	Saudi Arabia	9	11	8	8	6	42	2
57	Venezuela	8	8	12	7	6	41	4
58	Sri Lanka	6	12	10	4	8	40	1
59	Pakistan	6	12	7	5	9	39	3
60	Uzbekistan	8	13	5	7	4	37	1
61	Lebanon	7	11	6	10	1	35	3
62	Cuba	3	11	5	8	5	32	1
63	Cambodia	6	10	6	5	4	31	3
64	Iran	8	3	3	10	7	31	3
65	Belarus	7	10	4	7	3	31	2
66	Tanzania	6	12	8	2	2	30	0
67	Côte d'Ivoire	7	10	7	3	2	29	0
68	Senegal	7	10	7	4	1	29	0
69	Morocco	7	4	4	8	5	28	1
70	Zimbabwe	4	12	5	3	3	27	2
71	Uganda	7	10	6	1	3	27	0
72	Egypt	7	2	5	6	5	25	3
73	China	5	0	4	6	9	24	1
74	Bangladesh	7	0	4	4	6	21	2
75	Ethiopia	5	2	3	2	4	16	2
76	Myanmar	4	1	3	7	1	16	2
77	Algeria	4	0	4	6	1	15	1
78	Iraq	5	0	3	6	1	15	1
79	Nepal	5	0	3	3	4	15	1

The top tier is a regulation story, not a technology story. Switzerland leads at 75/84 with the best regulatory score in the top five (16/20): legal clarity as property, sane taxation, working banking access, and a licensing regime that exchanges actually use. Canada and the USA tie at 71; Australia and Germany follow at 70. What separates these five from the chasing pack is almost never spending infrastructure, which is saturated at the top, and almost always Pillar 2. Spending rails are effectively solved in the developed world. Seven of the top ten score a perfect 20/20 on Pillar 3: a resident of Zurich, Toronto, or Milan can hold a locally licensed crypto card, buy from more than a hundred gift-card brands, and route utility bills through regulated stablecoin bridges. Ten years after the first "spend Bitcoin" directories, paying for life with crypto in a developed economy is no longer the hard part. Infrastructure caps everyone, by design. No country exceeds 11/12 on Pillar 4, and the only 11s belong to Argentina and Russia, not to a Nordic state. The reason is the remittance sub-pillar: rich economies with cheap bank rails have no crypto remittance corridor, so they cede those points. This is the index working as intended; the pillar measures preconditions and lived flows, not wealth. Argentina at #6 is the anomaly that previews Table 2. It posts the joint-strongest regulatory score in the entire index (17/20, shared only with El Salvador and above Switzerland's 16), near-perfect infrastructure points, a deep P2P market (bonus 3 of 4), and a spending stack built by inflation-hardened demand. The only thing keeping it from the rails podium is access friction left over from a decade of capital controls. Hold that thought. The bottom of the table is legislated, not underdeveloped. Algeria, Iraq, and Nepal close the ranking at 15/84 not because nothing works there but because nearly everything is prohibited: criminalised possession, banking bans, blocked platforms. Where prohibition is total, livability converges on zero regardless of income level. Egypt (25) and China (24) sit barely above them, two of the world's largest economies kept out of the top sixty by policy alone.

2.4 From capability to livelihood: the livability turn

Table 1 has a blind spot, and Switzerland is the cleanest way to see it. The Swiss environment is superb, and almost nobody in Switzerland needs it: the franc holds value, banks work, salaries arrive, and crypto is an excellent hobby. Meanwhile a freelancer in Buenos Aires, a remittance family in Manila, and a saver in Beirut use materially worse environments as primary financial infrastructure, because the alternative is worse. A livability ranking that cannot tell these situations apart measures the showroom, not the road.

The livability ranking corrects this with one multiplication:

```

Adjusted = (Raw / 84) × NeedMultiplier

NeedMultiplier = 0.5 + 1.5 × CNI

```

The CNI averages five equally weighted, normalised components per country: inflation (three-year average, 2023 to 2025), the unbanked share of adults,³ remittance dependence as a share of GDP, capital-control intensity,⁴ and sanctions exposure (sources and vintages in Appendix A.7).⁵ It runs from 0 to 1; the multiplier maps it onto a range from ×0.5 to ×2.0, and a country at CNI 0.33 keeps its capability score unchanged (×1.0). Most of the world sits below that point: the median CNI across the 79 is 0.16, which is precisely why the countries above it tell the story. The change between a country's two ranks is therefore the headline statistic: it states, in places gained or lost, how much of a country's crypto story is need.

Two design choices matter more than the arithmetic. The adjustment is multiplicative, so need can only amplify capability that exists: a country with broken rails cannot ride desperation to the top of a livability table, however severe its crisis. And the adjustment is not a cost-of-living rescale. A purchasing-power correction would rescale the money-denominated inputs and leave the developed-world top ten essentially intact; the lever that produces the livelihood ranking is fiat dysfunction, of which inflation is only one input among five.

2.5 Table 2: the livability ranking

Same capability scores, reweighted by need. Δ is places gained or lost against the rails ranking.

#	Country	Raw /84	CNI	Multiplier	Adjusted	rails rank	Δ
1	Argentina	69	0.41	×1.11	0.910	6	+5
2	El Salvador	62	0.37	×1.06	0.781	20	+18
3	Ukraine	58	0.37	×1.05	0.727	28	+25
4	Nigeria	54	0.41	×1.12	0.719	40	+36
5	Turkey	54	0.40	×1.10	0.710	41	+36
6	Venezuela	41	0.60	×1.41	0.686	57	+51
7	Philippines	61	0.29	×0.94	0.684	22	+15
8	Brazil	67	0.21	×0.82	0.656	9	+1
9	Lebanon	35	0.71	×1.57	0.655	61	+52
10	Cuba	32	0.81	×1.71	0.651	62	+52
11	Russia	46	0.44	×1.16	0.635	52	+41
12	South Africa	62	0.23	×0.84	0.618	19	+7
13	Ghana	46	0.39	×1.08	0.593	54	+41
14	Mexico	61	0.20	×0.80	0.583	23	+9
15	Colombia	55	0.26	×0.88	0.579	39	+24
16	Indonesia	57	0.22	×0.83	0.567	32	+16
17	Romania	64	0.16	×0.73	0.559	17	+0
18	Pakistan	39	0.45	×1.18	0.546	59	+41
19	Vietnam	55	0.22	×0.83	0.546	38	+19
20	India	53	0.23	×0.85	0.537	43	+23
21	Poland	65	0.12	×0.68	0.526	12	-9
22	Georgia	60	0.15	×0.72	0.515	24	+2
23	Iran	31	0.58	×1.37	0.506	64	+41
24	Thailand	57	0.16	×0.74	0.501	33	+9
25	Malaysia	58	0.15	×0.72	0.500	29	+4
26	Uzbekistan	37	0.40	×1.10	0.485	60	+34
27	UAE	67	0.07	×0.60	0.479	10	-17
28	Kazakhstan	47	0.23	×0.84	0.472	50	+22
29	Switzerland	75	0.01	×0.52	0.461	1	-28
30	Sri Lanka	40	0.31	×0.97	0.460	58	+28
31	Italy	68	0.04	×0.56	0.457	7	-24
32	USA	71	0.02	×0.53	0.447	3	-29
33	Germany	70	0.02	×0.53	0.443	5	-28
34	Zimbabwe	27	0.58	×1.38	0.443	70	+36
35	Australia	70	0.02	×0.53	0.442	4	-31
36	Canada	71	0.01	×0.52	0.441	2	-34
37	Czechia	65	0.05	×0.57	0.440	13	-24
38	Netherlands	68	0.02	×0.53	0.428	8	-30
39	Portugal	65	0.03	×0.55	0.426	14	-25
40	Kenya	51	0.13	×0.70	0.426	47	+7
41	New Zealand	66	0.02	×0.53	0.419	11	-30
42	Chile	52	0.11	×0.67	0.413	45	+3
43	Spain	65	0.02	×0.53	0.408	16	-27
44	Belarus	31	0.40	×1.10	0.404	65	+21
45	Singapore	65	0.01	×0.52	0.404	15	-30
46	Taiwan	54	0.08	×0.62	0.401	42	-4
47	France	63	0.02	×0.53	0.400	18	-29
48	UK	62	0.02	×0.53	0.392	21	-27
49	Greece	59	0.04	×0.55	0.389	26	-23
50	Sweden	60	0.03	×0.54	0.384	25	-25
51	Israel	57	0.04	×0.56	0.377	34	-17
52	Cyprus	58	0.03	×0.54	0.376	31	-21
53	Panama	50	0.08	×0.62	0.368	49	-4
54	South Korea	58	0.02	×0.53	0.366	30	-24
55	Hong Kong	59	0.01	×0.52	0.365	27	-28
56	Peru	46	0.11	×0.66	0.363	53	-3
57	Ireland	57	0.02	×0.53	0.358	35	-22
58	Malta	56	0.02	×0.53	0.353	37	-21
59	Estonia	53	0.04	×0.55	0.349	44	-15
60	Finland	56	0.01	×0.52	0.347	36	-24
61	Morocco	28	0.35	×1.03	0.342	69	+8
62	Lithuania	52	0.03	×0.55	0.338	46	-16
63	Senegal	29	0.31	×0.97	0.334	68	+5
64	Saudi Arabia	42	0.11	×0.67	0.333	56	-8
65	Hungary	45	0.08	×0.62	0.332	55	-10
66	Tanzania	30	0.27	×0.91	0.325	66	+0
67	Egypt	25	0.39	×1.09	0.324	72	+5
68	Japan	51	0.02	×0.52	0.318	48	-20
69	Côte d'Ivoire	29	0.28	×0.92	0.317	67	-2
70	Bahrain	47	0.04	×0.56	0.311	51	-19
71	Cambodia	31	0.18	×0.77	0.283	63	-8
72	Bangladesh	21	0.37	×1.05	0.263	74	+2
73	Myanmar	16	0.55	×1.32	0.253	76	+3
74	Uganda	27	0.14	×0.71	0.230	71	-3
75	China	24	0.19	×0.79	0.225	73	-2
76	Nepal	15	0.47	×1.20	0.214	79	+3
77	Ethiopia	16	0.40	×1.09	0.208	75	-2
78	Iraq	15	0.36	×1.04	0.186	78	+0
79	Algeria	15	0.32	×0.98	0.176	77	-2

Four stories carry the table.

The Lifelines tier. The top ten (Argentina, El Salvador, Ukraine, Nigeria, Turkey, Venezuela, Philippines, Brazil, Lebanon, Cuba) is the report's headline finding: the places where living on crypto is simultaneously possible and necessary. Five of the ten gained more than thirty places against the rails ranking. These are not the world's best crypto environments; they are the world's most used ones, where the index's question stops being hypothetical. Argentina, first by both halves of the equation. Argentina tops the table at 0.910 with a margin that no other country approaches, and it earns the rank twice over: the strongest rails in the Lifelines tier (69/84) multiplied by structural need that a single good policy year does not erase (a 131.8% three-year inflation average, the index's capital-controls reading, and a population habituated to pricing in dollars and saving in stablecoins). One vintage caveat is disclosed rather than buried: the capital-controls source predates Argentina's April 2025 removal of individual FX restrictions. The published sensitivity analysis re-scores that event, and Argentina remains first regardless (Appendix A.8). The rank survives its own footnote. El Salvador, second on data, not branding. El Salvador's place is earned by World Bank figures, not by the Bitcoin headline: remittances near 24% of GDP, a 57% unbanked adult population, and a usable 62/84 environment built since 2021. The country that made crypto legal tender no longer scores 4 on legal status (the 2025 IMF-conditioned reform ended mandatory acceptance),⁶ which makes its #2 more credible, not less: it holds the rank on measured need and working rails alone, in both the published table and the sensitivity scenario. Need without rails climbs, but cannot top the table. Cuba carries the index's highest need score (CNI 0.81) and ranks 10th; Lebanon, at 0.71, ranks 9th. Both are lifted dramatically against their rails ranks (+52 places each), and both are capped exactly where the multiplicative design says they should be: a 32/84 or 35/84 environment cannot finish first, whatever the desperation behind it. Iran (#23), Zimbabwe (#34), and Myanmar (#73) repeat the lesson down the table. The formula's one-line summary: lifelines beat broken rails. The developed world's fall is the point, not a flaw. Switzerland drops from 1st to 29th. Canada falls 34 places, Australia 31, the USA 29, Germany 28; the UAE, with its large unbanked migrant workforce, falls only 17. Nothing about these countries' environments changed between the two tables; what changed is the question. Their citizens can live on crypto and overwhelmingly do not need to, and a livability index that did not say so would be measuring the wrong thing.

2.6 Robustness

The ranking's sensitivity to its weakest input, the capital-controls vintage,⁴ is tested openly: re-scoring the twelve documented 2024 and 2025 capital-account policy events⁷⁸⁹¹⁰¹¹¹²¹³¹⁴¹⁵¹⁶¹⁷¹⁸ moves mid-table positions by at most seven places and leaves the podium unchanged, with Argentina first and El Salvador second in both variants (Appendix A.8). Estimates flagged in the dataset (Cuba's unbanked share and remittance dependence above all) are bounded, disclosed, and individually incapable of moving any other country's rank. The full dataset and build script are published; every number in both tables regenerates deterministically from cited inputs.

Chapter 3 follows the spending rails into the ground truth: what a resident of each of these countries can actually pay for.

Notes

Financial Action Task Force (FATF), *FATF Recommendations / Travel Rule (R.16) guidance on VASPs* (2012), https://www.fatf-gafi.org/. Archived at http://web.archive.org/web/20260609110416/https://www.fatf-gafi.org/.
Genghis Research, *The CLI dataset (79×22 scores, CNI inputs, both rankings, sensitivity scenario)* (2025), https://genghis.pro/crypto-livability-index.
World Bank, *The Global Findex Database 2025* (2025), https://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/globalfindex. Archived at http://web.archive.org/web/20260610091320/https://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/globalfindex.
Chinn, M. D. & Ito, H. (Portland State University), *The Chinn-Ito Index (KAOPEN), 2023 release* (2023), https://web.pdx.edu/~ito/Chinn-Ito_website.htm. Archived at http://web.archive.org/web/20260303123244/https://web.pdx.edu/~ito/Chinn-Ito_website.htm.
International Monetary Fund, *IMF AREAER + CPI data; El Salvador EFF program* (2024), https://www.imf.org/. Archived at http://web.archive.org/web/20251101052825/https://imf.org/.
El Salvador (Asamblea Legislativa), *2025 amendment ending mandatory Bitcoin acceptance (IMF-conditioned)* (2025), https://www.asamblea.gob.sv/sites/default/files/documents/decretos/FC2C7E66-490B-4420-B8B5-221C2F2A4C28.pdf. Archived at http://web.archive.org/web/20250422030548/https://www.asamblea.gob.sv/sites/default/files/documents/decretos/FC2C7E66-490B-4420-B8B5-221C2F2A4C28.pdf.
US Dept of Commerce (trade.gov); BCRA / MercoPress, *2024 to 2025 capital-account event to Argentina (easing to removal of individual FX restrictions (cepo), Apr 2025)* (2024), https://www.trade.gov/market-intelligence/argentina-eliminates-capital-controls-and-payment-timelines. Archived at http://web.archive.org/web/20260616163040/https://www.trade.gov/market-intelligence/argentina-eliminates-capital-controls-and-payment-timelines.
Council on Foreign Relations; AP, *2024 to 2025 capital-account event to Egypt (easing to FX liberalisation / pound float, 2024)* (2024), https://www.cfr.org/in-brief/can-egypts-economic-overhaul-stave-crisis. Archived at http://web.archive.org/web/20260304230557/https://www.cfr.org/in-brief/can-egypts-economic-overhaul-stave-crisis.
IMF (Country Report No. 24/318); African Business, *2024 to 2025 capital-account event to Ethiopia (easing to FX regime liberalisation, 2024)* (2024), https://www.imf.org/-/media/Files/Publications/CR/2024/English/1ethea2024002-print-pdf.ashx. Archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20260128150147/https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/publications/cr/2024/english/1ethea2024002-print-pdf.pdf.
Central Bank of Nigeria; Punch, *2024 to 2025 capital-account event to Nigeria (easing to naira/FX liberalisation, 2024)* (2024), https://www.cbn.gov.ng/intops/FXMarket.html. Archived at http://web.archive.org/web/20260218015621/https://www.cbn.gov.ng/intops/FXMarket.html.
IMF (Country Report No. 24/311); The Express Tribune, *2024 to 2025 capital-account event to Pakistan (easing to FX measures, 2024 to 2025)* (2024), https://imf.org/-/media/Files/Publications/CR/2024/English/1pakea2024004-print-pdf.ashx. Archived at http://web.archive.org/web/20250515141031/https://www.imf.org/-/media/Files/Publications/CR/2024/English/1pakea2024004-print-pdf.ashx.
EconomyNext; Xinhua, *2024 to 2025 capital-account event to Sri Lanka (easing to relaxation of crisis-era controls, 2024 to 2025)* (2024), https://economynext.com/sri-lanka-to-lift-all-vehicle-import-restrictions-by-february-2025-minister-179540/. Archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20260616142904/https://economynext.com/sri-lanka-to-lift-all-vehicle-import-restrictions-by-february-2025-minister-179540/.
CBRT; Daily Sabah, *2024 to 2025 capital-account event to Turkey (easing to normalisation of FX measures, 2024 to 2025)* (2024), https://tcmbblog.org/wps/wcm/connect/blog/en/main+menu/analyses/exit+from+kkm+accounts. Archived at http://web.archive.org/web/20260404092159/https://tcmbblog.org/wps/wcm/connect/blog/en/main+menu/analyses/exit+from+kkm+accounts.
UNCTAD Investment Policy Monitor; US Dept of State, *2024 to 2025 capital-account event to Belarus (tightening to capital-account restriction, 2024 to 2025)* (2024), https://investmentpolicy.unctad.org/investment-policy-monitor/measures/242/tightens-mandatory-foreign-exchange-conversion-rules-. Archived at http://web.archive.org/web/20260616143053/https://investmentpolicy.unctad.org/investment-policy-monitor/measures/242/tightens-mandatory-foreign-exchange-conversion-rules-.
Interfax; Carnegie Endowment, *2024 to 2025 capital-account event to Russia (tightening to capital-control measures, 2024 to 2025)* (2024), https://interfax.com/newsroom/top-stories/111539/. Archived at http://web.archive.org/web/20251207132808/https://interfax.com/newsroom/top-stories/111539/.
Allen & Gledhill; Central Bank of Myanmar (Notification 37/2024), *2024 to 2025 capital-account event to Myanmar (tightening to FX/capital restriction, 2024 to 2025)* (2024), https://www.allenandgledhill.com/publication/articles/28938/central-bank-of-myanmar-requires-exporters-to-exchange-25-of-their-earnings-at-central-bank-rate. Archived at http://web.archive.org/web/20260616143341/https://www.allenandgledhill.com/publication/articles/28938/central-bank-of-myanmar-requires-exporters-to-exchange-25-of-their-earnings-at-central-bank-rate.
Bangladesh Bank; US Dept of State, *2024 to 2025 capital-account event to Bangladesh (reviewed and held to change assessed, not scored)* (2024), https://www.bb.org.bd/monetaryactivity/mps/mps_h1fy26.pdf. Archived at http://web.archive.org/web/20260124052449/https://www.bb.org.bd/monetaryactivity/mps/mps_h1fy26.pdf.
EY Ukraine; Wolf Theiss, *2024 to 2025 capital-account event to Ukraine (reviewed and held to wartime controls assessed, not scored)* (2024), https://www.ey.com/en_ua/technical/ey-ukraine-alert/national-bank-of-ukraine-further-revises-currency-restrictions. Archived at http://web.archive.org/web/20250803014658/https://www.ey.com/en_ua/technical/ey-ukraine-alert/national-bank-of-ukraine-further-revises-currency-restrictions.