The Rulebook

---

5.1 What the law says, and who shows up anyway

Chapter 4 closed on the gap between what the law says and what the money does. This chapter reads the law itself. Pillar 2 grades the rulebook each of the 79 countries has written around crypto: whether the asset is legal to hold, what the tax authority takes from it, whether a salary can lawfully arrive in it, and how much identity verification stands between a resident and their first purchase. The pillar's fifth dimension, the direction the rulebook is moving, is the subject of Chapter 6 and appears here only in the pillar totals. Alongside the rulebook, this chapter reads the room: Pillar 5 measures the community that forms around crypto in each country, its meetups, its media, its search interest, and its developers, because a rulebook describes what is permitted and a scene reveals what is alive.

Three findings frame the chapter:

• On 31 December 2025 there was no country on Earth where crypto was legal tender. El Salvador, the only state ever to occupy the top band, stepped down from it in January 2025 under an IMF-conditioned reform. Meanwhile the band below has become the global norm: 53 of 79 countries now recognise crypto in statute as property or a regulated asset. The decade's quiet settlement: property yes, money no.
• Every tax zero in the index is a ban. Nine countries score the worst band on tax treatment, and not one of them earns it through rates: all nine are states where the activity itself is criminalised or prohibited, so there is nothing lawful left to tax. No market economy in the index taxes crypto into unlivability; where the tax score hits the floor, the law got there first.
• The anonymous on-ramp is extinct, and the heaviest identity friction is in the most sophisticated markets. No country in the index lets a resident buy crypto with local money and no identity check, a top band empty across all 79. Below that empty band the geography inverts: the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong, and the UAE all sit in the heavy-friction band, while most of Latin America, Southeast Asia, and non-ban Africa transact on standard verification with no state cap.

The four rulebook dimensions, in one distribution:¹

5.2 Legal status: property, not money

The first question a rulebook answers is the simplest: is the asset legal at all? The sub-pillar runs from a general ban (0) through partial bans and grey areas to statutory recognition as property (3) and legal tender (4), and its distribution is the most lopsided in Pillar 2. Two-thirds of the index, 53 countries, sits at 3. The legal-tender band is empty, and the reason it is empty is the report's cleanest single illustration of cutoff discipline. El Salvador's January 2025 IMF-conditioned amendment removed the mandatory-acceptance features of the Bitcoin Law,² ending the world's only legal-tender experiment eleven months before the cutoff.³ Chapter 2 argued this makes the country's #2 livability rank more credible, not less; here it simply means the top of the legality scale is, for now, theoretical.

The 53-country middle band is broader than most readers expect, and the breadth is the finding. It holds the expected names (Switzerland, Germany, Japan, the entire EU cluster), but the verification pass placed several of the world's supposedly hostile jurisdictions there too, on a principle the index applied uniformly:

Method box: you cannot tax or license what is banned. A recurring error in secondary sources is to read an enforcement action, a banking restriction, or an official warning as a ban on the asset itself. The index scores statutory reality instead: where a state defines the asset in law, taxes it, or licenses its service providers, the asset is legally recognised, however hostile the enforcement climate around it. On this test India (a statutory virtual-digital-asset definition since 2022),⁴ Indonesia (a licensed commodity framework),⁵ Turkey,⁶ Russia (property in law since 2021), Cuba (a central-bank VASP regime), and Nigeria all score 3, several of them corrected upward from ban-citation baselines. The gap between legality on paper and hostility in practice is real, and it is scored where it belongs: in banking friction (Chapter 4), identity friction (section 5.5), and trajectory (Chapter 6).

The band also gained its newest member with one day to spare: Ghana's Virtual Asset Service Providers Act was signed into law on 30 December 2025,⁷ creating a licensing regime jointly supervised by the central bank and the securities regulator, and moving the country out of the grey zone 24 hours before the index's photograph was taken.

Below the recognition band, fourteen countries occupy the grey middle, where no statute points either way: Vietnam, Saudi Arabia (whose much-cited 2018 notice is a risk warning, not a prohibition), Lebanon, Venezuela, Panama, and a belt of African and South Asian markets. Five operate partial bans (Iran, Ethiopia, Myanmar, Cambodia, Uganda), and seven prohibit the asset generally: Algeria, Bangladesh, China, Egypt,⁸ Iraq, Morocco, and Nepal. The ban club is the same roster that anchored the bottom of every distribution in Chapters 3 and 4, and Pillar 2 is where that anchoring originates. A general ban cascades through tax (banned activity scores 0), income (illegal income scores 0, a floor the methodology enforces mechanically), and identity friction (no legal pathway scores 0). Prohibition is not one bad score; it is a column of them.

5.3 Tax: zero to fifty-five

No dimension of the rulebook varies more than what the state takes. At one end, fifteen countries tax an individual's crypto gains at exactly nothing; at the other, Japan's miscellaneous-income treatment reaches a combined top marginal rate of 55%, the heaviest burden in the index.⁹ Between those poles the index's tax bands sort 79 countries into a distribution with no majority anywhere: 15 at zero, 22 in the light band at or below 15%, 19 in the moderate band, 14 heavy, and 9 at the floor.

The zero-tax club is the most heterogeneous fifteen in the report, and its variety is the point: there is no single road to 0%. Switzerland exempts private wealth gains by long-standing doctrine; Singapore, Hong Kong, and Malaysia simply have no capital-gains tax to apply; the UAE and Bahrain levy no personal tax at all; Georgia and Panama exempt by territoriality; El Salvador exempts by design. Two members are there by clock rather than constitution, and the index discloses both: South Korea's crypto capital-gains tax has been legislated and postponed to January 2027,¹⁰ and Thailand's exemption rests on a royal decree that expires at the end of 2029.¹¹ Both score 4 at the cutoff, because the cutoff is the rule; both carry trajectory flags, because honesty is too (Chapter 6). Indonesia and Vietnam reach the band by substitution, taxing transactions at a fraction of a percent instead of taxing gains,⁵ and Saudi Arabia's 2.5% Zakat is a religious wealth levy, not a capital-gains tax, a distinction the verification pass enforced against the baseline.

The heavy band tells the opposite story, and one member tells it best. India taxes crypto gains at a flat 30% plus cess, an effective 31.2%, and deducts 1% at source on every single trade.⁴ The headline rate is a revenue policy; the 1% deduction is a surveillance architecture, a per-transaction census of who trades what, and it belongs as much to section 5.5 as it does here. Chile reaches 40% by folding crypto into general income; France, Ireland, and the Nordics occupy the band by ordinary high-tax-state arithmetic. And at the very bottom, the finding announced above holds across all nine zeros (Algeria, Bangladesh, China, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iraq, Morocco, Myanmar, Nepal): every one is a prohibition state. The index contains punishing tax regimes and it contains confiscatory ones, but nowhere does taxation alone reduce crypto to unlivability. Where livability dies in this sub-pillar, it was killed by the criminal code, not the tax code.

One more cell deserves its sentence: Argentina, the index's livability #1, taxes crypto disposals at 5 to 15% on a dedicated schedule. The country with the world's most-used crypto rails is also among the gentler taxers of them, a coherence between rulebook and reality that very few countries manage in either direction.

5.4 Getting paid: the earning gap

Owning crypto is legal in two-thirds of the index. Being paid in it is fully provided for in three countries. That asymmetry is the income sub-pillar's finding, and it measures the distance between a rulebook that tolerates an asset and one that accommodates a life.

The top band requires an explicit legal framework for crypto compensation, and only El Salvador, the UAE (where a 2024 Dubai court ruling held a crypto-denominated salary enforceable),¹² and Argentina (whose civil code permits payment in kind, capped for employees at 20% of wages)¹³ clear it. The broad middle band at 3, thirty-four countries, is the developed-world norm: crypto wages are lawful and taxed as ordinary income, with no labour-law bar but also no dedicated framework. A Swiss or Canadian employer can pay in crypto and the tax authority knows exactly what to do with it; nobody wrote a statute to encourage the practice.

The chapter's sharper reading is lower down. Twenty-three countries sit at "tolerated," the grey band where freelancers invoice in USDT and nobody asks, and that band is where the Lifelines tier lives: of the ten countries in the livability top ten, seven (Ukraine, Nigeria, Turkey, Venezuela, the Philippines, Cuba, and Lebanon at the band below) can offer crypto earners no better than tolerance or restriction. The populations most likely to be paid in crypto, remote workers in Lagos, developers in Kyiv, freelancers in Istanbul, are earning in a legal twilight: the asset is lawful, the income is taxable, and the employment relationship around it is provided for almost nowhere. The earning gap is the rulebook's largest unbuilt room, and the three countries that built it (two of them need economies) are the exception that shows construction is possible.

5.5 The identity perimeter: KYC

The last dimension measures the toll at the gate: how much identity verification, transaction capping, and proof-of-funds gating stands between a resident and their crypto. The sub-pillar is scored inverted, higher meaning freer, and its top band, no verification required as a practical norm, is empty across all 79 countries. Chapter 2 flagged this as the index's quiet milestone and this chapter owns it: in the era of the FATF Travel Rule, there is no jurisdiction on Earth where the legal acquisition of crypto with local money is anonymous.¹⁴ Even in collapse states whose governments cap nothing, the exchanges and P2P platforms that residents actually use verify identity at onboarding. That is why Lebanon and Venezuela score a standard-friction 3 rather than the 4 a naive reading of their state capacity would award. The informal street trade, cash for USDT with no questions, exists nearly everywhere and is scored nowhere: it is a workaround, not a norm.

Below the empty band, the distribution inverts the index's usual geography more sharply than any score outside Pillar 3's connectivity rail. The heavy-friction band, twenty countries deep, reads like a rollcall of the world's financial capitals: the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan, South Korea (whose real-name banking rule binds every exchange account to a verified bank account at a partner bank), Singapore, Hong Kong, and the UAE. The band is joined by India (the 1% deduction-at-source census from section 5.3)⁴ and Nigeria (where enforcement freezes P2P traders' bank accounts years after the formal ban ended). The standard-friction band at 3, twenty-seven countries, is Latin America almost entire, Southeast Asia's open markets, and non-ban Africa: Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, Indonesia, Vietnam, the Philippines, Kenya, Ghana. The European Union sits almost uniformly in between at 2, capped by the Transfer of Funds Regulation's €1,000 verification threshold for transfers to self-custodied wallets;¹⁵ Hungary alone sits a band lower, on tightened national supervision.

The pattern deserves stating plainly, because it is the rulebook's deepest irony: identity friction rises with regulatory sophistication, not with hostility. A resident of Buenos Aires or Nairobi completes one standard verification and transacts freely; a resident of London or Seoul faces proof-of-funds requests, bank-side blocks, cooling-off periods, and per-transfer interrogation. The world's most advanced crypto markets are the most heavily gated, and the markets where crypto is daily infrastructure run on the lightest practical friction the Travel Rule era permits. Whether that inversion is prudence or self-harm is a policy argument; the index only reports that it exists.

5.6 The rulebook, assembled

Sum the five regulatory dimensions (the four above plus trajectory, scored in Chapter 6) and the pillar's scoreboard delivers the finding Chapter 2 trailed: the two best rulebooks in the index belong to need economies. Argentina and El Salvador share the top score at 17/20, a point above Switzerland, the UAE, Georgia, Malaysia, and Thailand at 16. Argentina earns it the hard way: statutory recognition, light dedicated taxation, the index's joint-best income framework, standard-friction KYC, and a liberalising trajectory. The country did not write a friendly rulebook out of ideology; it wrote one because millions of its citizens were already living on the asset and the state chose accommodation over war.

At the other end, five countries post the only zeros in the index on an entire pillar: China, Bangladesh, Iraq, Nepal, and Algeria score 0/20, with Myanmar at 1 and Egypt and Ethiopia at 2. Chapter 2 observed that the bottom of the rails ranking is legislated rather than underdeveloped; Pillar 2 is the legislation. And between the poles, the pillar quietly explains the top of Table 1. Switzerland's 16/20 is the best regulatory score in the rails top five, two points clear of Germany and three clear of Canada, the USA, and Australia, which is precisely why Switzerland is #1. Rails are saturated at the top of the index; the rulebook is the tiebreaker.

5.7 The room: media, meetups, search, and code

A rulebook is what a state writes; a scene is what a population builds. Pillar 5 measures four expressions of it: in-person events, local media, search interest, and developer activity. Two of its four metrics are scored as quintiles across the 79 (a fifth of countries in each band by construction), so the findings live in which countries land where, not in the band counts.

Method box: what the scene metrics can and cannot see. Event counts exclude private, invite-only gatherings, which undercounts community life precisely where it is repressed. Developer figures measure public GitHub activity, invisible wherever development is closed-source, corporate, or state-run, a blindness that mainly depresses China-style ecosystems. And search interest is normalised within each country, so it measures attention, not adoption. Each metric is honest about a different blind spot; the pillar is read as a composite for exactly that reason (Appendix A).

Media is the scene's connectivity rail. Forty-two of 79 countries support five or more active local crypto outlets, and only Algeria and Myanmar support none: the same high-floor pattern as phone top-ups in Chapter 3. More telling is who the band-4 members are: Iran, China, and Russia all sustain five-plus active outlets, state, exchange-adjacent, and diaspora presses covering an asset their governments restrict. Bans silence meetups, not media. The event sub-pillar's bottom band is a repression cluster, not an apathy cluster (Algeria criminalised public crypto organising outright; China, Iran, Cuba, Belarus, Myanmar, and Iraq fill out the band), while the media sub-pillar shows the same regimes failing to suppress coverage. Information crosses the perimeter; assembly does not. The deepest scenes are not the richest. The event metric normalises 2025 activity by the size of each country's crypto user base, and the top band pairs the expected hubs (the USA, the UK, Singapore, the UAE, Switzerland) with Nigeria, Vietnam, India, Brazil, and Argentina. Argentina is the emblematic cell: roughly 150 events in 2025, anchored by Devconnect Buenos Aires, the largest Ethereum Foundation gathering ever held, around 15,000 participants and 500-plus side events,¹⁶ in the same city where Chapter 4 counted three crypto ATMs. The formal infrastructure is thin; the human infrastructure is world-class. Search interest tracks curiosity, not usage, and one cell proves it. El Salvador, the only country ever to make crypto legal tender, posts bottom-quintile search interest,¹⁷ the most counterintuitive single cell in the index. The reading is not that Salvadorans abandoned crypto; it is that settled daily usage generates no queries. Searching is what populations do when crypto is a question; in El Salvador it is an answer, riding remittance rails and wallet defaults rather than Google. Bangladesh makes the same point from the other side: top-quintile search interest under a total ban. Curiosity is highest where the question is open, and lowest where it is closed, in either direction. The developer map rewards specialisation, not size. Web3 developers as a share of each country's developer base puts Malta, Cyprus, and Estonia alongside Switzerland and the Nordics at the top (small developer pools, outsized crypto specialisation), and pushes Hong Kong, Turkey, Mexico, the Philippines, and Indonesia to the bottom band, not because their Web3 developers are absent but because their enormous general developer populations dilute the ratio. The pillar's own design warns against reading any single metric alone: the Philippines pairs a bottom-band developer ratio with a top-band media count and upper-band event activity.

Summed, the pillar's scoreboard belongs to the Anglosphere: the United Kingdom and Canada post the only 16/16s, with Switzerland, the USA, Australia, Germany, and Portugal at 15. The floor belongs to Lebanon, at 1/16 the lowest ecosystem score in the index: zero scored events, one media outlet, bottom-quintile search, bottom-band developers. The country Chapter 1 ranked second in the world on need, and Chapter 4 credited with one of the deepest informal dollar markets measured, has almost no public crypto life at all. Need builds usage; it does not, under collapse, build a scene.

5.8 The rulebook and the room

Read the two pillars against each other and four corners of the world emerge. Argentina and El Salvador hold the corner where rulebook and room agree in the affirmative: top-of-index regulation, living communities. The bottom five (China, Bangladesh, Iraq, Nepal, Algeria) hold the opposite corner, where the rulebook forbids and the public room is correspondingly empty or silent. The remaining two corners hold the chapter's real findings. China and Iran keep media-saturated scenes alive inside hostile rulebooks (China with a top-third developer bench besides): the room outlives the law. And Lebanon inverts them both, a tolerable rulebook on paper (11/20) above a dead room (1/16), because what failed there was never primarily the law; it was everything the law was supposed to govern.

The rulebooks themselves, meanwhile, are not standing still. Italy's flat rate rises,¹⁸ Nigeria's capital-gains rate more than doubles,¹⁹ South Korea's exemption expires, and a dozen legislatures have bills in motion: the photograph this report takes on 31 December 2025 is of a subject in mid-stride.

Chapter 6 reads the direction of travel: which rulebooks are opening, which are closing, and what 2026 already has in statute.

Notes

1. Genghis Research, *The CLI dataset (79×22 scores, CNI inputs, both rankings, sensitivity scenario)* (2025), https://genghis.pro/crypto-livability-index.
2. 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.
3. 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/.
4. India (Finance Act 2022), *Virtual Digital Asset definition; 30% tax + 1% TDS* (2022), https://incometaxindia.gov.in/pages/indiacode/finance-indiacode.aspx. Archived at http://web.archive.org/web/20251214015817/https://incometaxindia.gov.in/pages/indiacode/finance-indiacode.aspx.
5. Indonesia (MoF; OJK), *PMK 50/2025 (transaction tax) + POJK 27/2024 (licensing)* (2024), https://ojk.go.id/id/regulasi/Pages/POJK-27-2024-AKD-AK.aspx. Archived at http://web.archive.org/web/20260520004726/https://www.ojk.go.id/id/regulasi/Pages/POJK-27-2024-AKD-AK.aspx.
6. Turkey (CMB), *Law 7518 (crypto-asset service provider regime)* (2024), https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2024/07/20240702.pdf. Archived at http://web.archive.org/web/20240902045039/https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2024/07/20240702.pdf.
7. Ghana, *Virtual Asset Service Providers Act, Act 1154* (2025), https://www.bog.gov.gh/news/press-release-passage-of-the-virtual-asset-service-providers-bill/. Archived at http://web.archive.org/web/20260616161824/https://www.bog.gov.gh/news/press-release-passage-of-the-virtual-asset-service-providers-bill/.
8. Egypt (CBE), *Law 194/2020 (banking law, crypto prohibition)* (2020), https://www.cbe.org.eg/en/laws-regulations/laws/banking-laws. Archived at http://web.archive.org/web/20260122063649/https://www.cbe.org.eg/en/laws-regulations/laws/banking-laws.
9. PwC, *Worldwide Tax Summaries (Online)* (2025), https://taxsummaries.pwc.com/. Archived at http://web.archive.org/web/20260616134805/https://taxsummaries.pwc.com/.
10. South Korea, *Crypto capital-gains tax (legislated, postponed to Jan 2027)* (2025), https://www.moef.go.kr/2024/taxlaw.do. Archived at http://web.archive.org/web/20250514011707/https://www.moef.go.kr/2024/taxlaw.do.
11. Thailand (Royal Decree), *Personal CGT exemption decree (expires end 2029); 2 stablecoins approved Mar 2025* (2025), https://www.rd.go.th/21221.html. Archived at http://web.archive.org/web/20260204030511/https://www.rd.go.th/21221.html.
12. UAE (VARA; Dubai courts), *VARA framework; 2024 Dubai court ruling on crypto-denominated salary* (2024), https://rulebooks.vara.ae/. Archived at http://web.archive.org/web/20260513073759/https://rulebooks.vara.ae/.
13. Argentina (Poder Ejecutivo), *Decree DNU 70/2023 (amends Civil Code Art. 766; crypto-settled contracts)* (2023), https://www.boletinoficial.gob.ar/detalleAviso/primera/301122/20231221. Archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20260616135705/https://www.boletinoficial.gob.ar/detalleAviso/primera/301122/20231221.
14. 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/.
15. European Union, *Transfer of Funds Regulation (TFR), Regulation (EU) 2023/1113* (2023), https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2023/1113/oj. Archived at http://web.archive.org/web/20260610165359/https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2023/1113/oj.
16. Ethereum Foundation, *Devconnect ARG 2025 to official recap* (2025), https://blog.ethereum.org/en/2025/12/04/devconnect-arg-wrap. Archived at http://web.archive.org/web/20260616142227/https://blog.ethereum.org/en/2025/12/04/devconnect-arg-wrap.
17. Google Trends, *Search interest, Q4 2025 (three keyword baskets)* (2025), https://trends.google.com/trends/. Archived at http://web.archive.org/web/20260616091058/https://trends.google.com/trends/.
18. Italy (Legge di Bilancio), *Crypto flat rate 26% to 33%* (2025), https://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/eli/id/2024/12/31/24G00229/sg. Archived at http://web.archive.org/web/20260514161315/https://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/eli/id/2024/12/31/24G00229/sg.
19. Nigeria, *Nigeria Tax Act 2025 (capital-gains rate 10% to ~25%)* (2025), official locator not yet published.