Official Crypto Registers by Country: A 195-Country Map

Open an official crypto register expecting token projects, and you may get a company directory instead. Open the next, and you may get a legal framework or nothing searchable at all.

For a crypto agency researcher, that difference changes the list before the first name reaches the CRM.

A useful map of official crypto registers by country is not 195 regulator tabs. It is 12 asset-level source routes, a separate set of provider directories, and a clear record of countries where no free public register was identified.

This article is a source-specific companion to the broader guide on how to find crypto projects to pitch and build a lead pipeline. It is for agencies and other B2B service teams researching projects, issuers, and regulated providers. It is not an investment screen or a country-by-country legal opinion.

What an official crypto register can actually mean​

A public crypto register is not automatically a token list. The source type determines what you can discover and what the record can support.

Source type	What it identifies	Best B2B use	What it does not prove
Asset, white-paper, or issuance source	A named asset, issuer, white paper, issuance, accepted token, or eligible asset	Project discovery and trigger-based qualification	Safety, performance, or universal approval
Provider register	A virtual asset service provider (VASP), crypto-asset service provider (CASP), exchange, custodian, issuer, or other regulated entity	Regulated-company discovery	Every asset the provider supports
Framework without a public register	A law, licensing path, anti-money-laundering regime, or official guidance	Market and compliance research	A ready-to-use lead list
No register identified	No free crypto-specific source identified as of 20 July 2026	A prompt for deeper local-language and regulator research	Proof that no register exists

In this map, not public means no free official asset-level list was identified for that entry. It does not mean a named provider register is private.

The distinction matters because a regulated company and a listed asset are different sales signals. One may suggest a compliance, infrastructure, or cybersecurity need. The other may indicate a white-paper, issuance, listing, or market-access milestone. Neither proves buying intent.

What the 195-country map shows​

Asset-level discovery is limited, but it is highly concentrated. The classification is:

Classification	Country entries	Share of 195	Practical meaning
Asset-level public source	41	21.0%	A free official route enumerates assets, white papers, issuances, issuers, or accepted assets
Provider-oriented public source only	27	13.8%	A public provider, firm, resident, or sandbox-participant source exists, but no free asset-level source was identified
Regulatory framework, no public register	12	6.2%	Rules or a licensing regime were found without a stable free register
No register identified	115	59.0%	No free crypto-specific public register was identified as of 20 July 2026

The arithmetic is visible: 41 + 27 + 12 + 115 = 195.

Asset-level and provider-level public-register entries together total 68, or 34.9% of the country set. Add the 12 framework-only entries and 80 countries, or 41.0%, have at least one recorded register or official framework. The remaining 115 entries are negative search findings, not legal conclusions.

There is another compression step. The 41 asset-level country entries resolve to only 12 distinct sources:

• 30 entries, or 73.2%, use ESMA;
• 8 entries, or 19.5%, use another national or officially recognized route;
• 3 entries, or 7.3%, use a state, financial-zone, or other limited-scope route.

That is the operating insight. Monitor the 12 routes. Keep provider registers in a different research queue.

The 12 official asset-level source routes​

Official sources use different status labels, including notified, registered, handled, designated, accepted, greenlisted, or approved for publication. Preserve the source's exact wording instead of labeling every entry an approved token.

Coverage	Official source	Record type and safe interpretation	Scope
30 EEA states	ESMA Interim MiCA Register	Notified white papers, asset-referenced-token and e-money-token issuers, authorised CASPs, and non-compliant entities. A listed white paper is not regulator-approved.	All 27 EU states plus Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway
El Salvador	CNAD Issuances	Digital-asset issuances registered under El Salvador's issuance regime	National
Indonesia	CFX Registered Crypto Assets	Assets used in Indonesia's supervised digital-financial-asset trading infrastructure	National
Japan	Japan Virtual and Crypto Assets Exchange Association (JVCEA) handled crypto-assets	Assets handled by member exchanges; JVCEA also publishes a separate Green List	National, FSA-recognized self-regulatory organization
Kazakhstan	Astana Financial Services Authority (AFSA) Green List	Assets reviewed for trading and custody by licensed digital-asset service provider (DASP) platforms	Astana International Financial Centre only
Malaysia	SC Malaysia digital-assets list	Tradeable digital assets on regulated exchanges and their Shariah status	National
Serbia	Serbia approved white-paper register	Decisions approving publication of digital-token white papers	National
Seychelles	Seychelles ICO and NFT register	Registered ICO and NFT offerings under the VASP Act	National, narrow offering scope
Thailand	Thai SEC specified-cryptocurrency notice and official appendix	A limited set of cryptocurrencies for specified ICO transactions and exchange base-pair uses	National, limited regulatory uses
United Arab Emirates	ADGM Accepted FRT list	Accepted fiat-referenced tokens for use by authorised persons	Abu Dhabi Global Market only
United States	New York State Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) Greenlisted Coins	Coins that NYDFS-regulated entities may list under the Greenlist process	New York State only
Uzbekistan	National Agency of Perspective Projects (NAPP) electronic crypto-asset register	Issued crypto-assets and their registration details	National

Iceland follows the ESMA route. The EFTA MiCA factsheet covers the European Economic Area route, and the Central Bank of Iceland says Iceland's MiCA implementation took effect on 1 January 2026 and directs readers to ESMA's register.

Three scope traps deserve extra care:

• NYDFS is a New York State route, not a federal US asset register.
• ADGM is a financial free-zone route, not a UAE-wide asset register.
• AFSA's list applies within the AIFC, not automatically across Kazakhstan.

Save the legal scope beside every imported record. Without it, a true source can produce a false CRM claim.

Turn a register record into a qualified B2B lead​

A register row is evidence, not a finished lead. Use this five-step Register-to-Pipeline Framework before contact.

1. Capture the source and its scope​

Record the authority, register name, exact URL, date checked, record type, jurisdiction, and legal scope. Preserve the status verb used by the source.

A field saying greenlisted in New York is usable. A field saying US government approved is not.

2. Extract the entity and trigger​

Capture the issuer, company, project, asset, white paper, or issuance exactly as published. Then record why the row matters now:

• white paper notified or approved for publication;
• issuance registered;
• asset added to a tradeable, handled, accepted, or greenlisted set;
• provider registered or authorised;
• record added, changed, or removed.

A name alone produces generic outreach. A dated trigger gives the research a reason to exist.

3. Resolve identity and deduplicate​

Verify the official website, legal-entity and brand relationship, token name or symbol, blockchain, and token address where relevant. Do not infer a contract from a matching ticker.

Then set filters and exceptions before routing records and deduplicate by legal entity, domain, asset, token address, and contact.

4. Enrich and verify current business contact data​

Official registers rarely provide an outreach-ready contact package. Enrich only after identity is resolved. Prefer current public business routes, and avoid copying personal contact fields from official records into campaigns without a clear privacy and outreach basis.

This is also why static crypto project contact lists fail. The source record, company identity, contact, and suppression state can all age at different speeds. Teams that need an automated intake layer can review the crypto project contacts API and lead-streaming workflow or the OpenClaw and LeadGenCrypto integration pattern.

5. Qualify fit and outreach basis​

Connect one public signal to one research question. Do not turn it into an invented need.

Official signal	Useful hypothesis	Qualification question	What to avoid
White paper or issuance record	A documented launch or issuance milestone exists	Which public operational, audit, legal, communications, or distribution gaps are visible?	Claiming the issuer is fundraising or wants a vendor
Tradeable, handled, accepted, or greenlisted asset	A defined market-access status exists	What is the exact jurisdictional scope, and has the project documented it accurately?	Calling the asset safe or nationally approved
Registered or authorised provider	A regulated operating entity exists	Is the entity a project, a service provider, or both, and which business function is relevant?	Inferring every supported token or service
Non-compliant or enforcement record	A risk signal exists	Should the record be suppressed, reviewed, or monitored?	Treating risk records as an ordinary sales trigger

Phrase the CRM note as evidence plus a question. The reader makes the judgment.

Register-to-Pipeline Framework

From official register record to qualified token-project lead

An official record is evidence. It becomes useful for B2B sales only after scope, identity, contact, and service-fit checks.

Input

Asset, issuer, white paper, issuance, VASP, CASP, exchange, custodian, or regulated provider record

↓

1. 1

   Capture source and scope

   Save the authority, register, exact URL, date checked, record type, jurisdiction, legal scope, and exact status wording.

   Use:Greenlisted in New York
   Avoid:US government approved
2. ↓
3. 2

   Extract the entity and dated trigger

   Capture the legal entity, project, asset, white paper, or issuance exactly as published.

   NotifiedRegisteredAddedAcceptedAuthorisedChangedRemoved

   Rule: A dated trigger creates a reason to research now. It does not prove buying intent.

4. ↓
5. 3

   Resolve identity and deduplicate

   Verify

   • Official domain
   • Legal entity and brand relationship
   • Token name, symbol, and blockchain
   • Contract address when relevant

   Deduplicate by

   • Legal entity
   • Domain
   • Asset and token address
   • Business contact

   Rule: Never match a token contract from the ticker alone.

6. ↓
7. 4

   Enrich and verify business contacts

   Use current public business routes: a business email, official contact page, public company Telegram when relevant, and the correct business function.

   Gate before outreach: record the verification date, opt-out state, and suppression decision. Resolve identity before enrichment.

8. ↓
9. 5

   Qualify fit and outreach basis

   Connect one official fact to one research question about audit, legal, compliance, security, infrastructure, data, PR, communications, or distribution.

   Build: evidence + scope + dated trigger + service-fit question

   Do not write:Register entry = confirmed need

↓

Qualified CRM note

Official evidence + exact scope + dated trigger + service-fit question

SourceScopeEntityTriggerVerified identityBusiness contactFit questionSuppression statusLast checked

Signal-to-service-fit quick guide

White paper or issuance

Investigate: audit, legal, compliance, communications, operations, and distribution gaps.

Do not assume: fundraising or active vendor demand.

Tradeable, accepted, or greenlisted asset

Investigate: listing operations, market data, infrastructure, and jurisdictional messaging.

Do not assume: safety, universal approval, or nationwide scope.

Registered or authorised provider

Investigate: cybersecurity, compliance operations, infrastructure, data, growth, and communications.

Do not assume: every supported token, product, or service.

Non-compliant or enforcement record

Action: suppress, review, or monitor.

Do not: treat it as an ordinary sales trigger.

Trust rule: Registration is not endorsement. Official visibility does not prove safety, legitimacy, buying intent, or lawful outreach. Recheck the source before using an old status.

Copy-paste register intake checklist​

Use the same intake fields for every route. This is the point where a source map becomes an operating process.

• Confirm the source belongs to an official authority or officially recognized body.
• Classify the row as asset-level, provider-level, framework-only, or risk-related.
• Save the exact source URL and date checked.
• Record national, regional, state, territorial, or financial-zone scope.
• Preserve the source's status verb: notified, registered, handled, tradeable, eligible, accepted, greenlisted, or approved for publication.
• Capture the issuer, project, asset, white paper, or provider exactly as published.
• Resolve the official website and legal-entity relationship.
• Verify token symbol, blockchain, and token address from primary evidence when relevant.
• Identify a real service-fit question before outreach.
• Use current public business contact data, not copied personal records.
• Deduplicate by project, entity, domain, token address, and email.
• Merge opt-outs and suppression rules before any send.
• Log the trigger and source evidence in the CRM.
• Use a relevant micro-ask and a clear opt-out.
• Recheck the register before relying on an old status.

Limits, freshness, and outreach compliance​

Official visibility is narrow evidence, not a quality badge. An entry does not automatically prove that:

• the asset is safe or suitable;
• the project is legitimate in every respect;
• the status applies across the whole country;
• the provider supports every associated asset;
• the source is complete or updated in real time;
• the entity needs your service;
• outreach is lawful in every relevant jurisdiction.

Dynamic pages create a second limit. CNAD, ADGM, and Seychelles should be visually checked immediately before deployment and before a campaign depends on them. JVCEA's reuse terms also need review before commercial extraction or redistribution of its explanatory documents.

The same discipline applies to contact use. Keep the message relevant, minimize data, verify the recipient and business route, honor opt-outs, and apply the rules that govern the recipient and sender. The B2B crypto outreach compliance guide covers that separate job.

LeadGenCrypto can complement official-source research with records that include website, token address, blockchain, token name or symbol, verified emails, and other information. That does not remove the need for source checks, relevance, suppression, or human qualification.

If you want to compare an official-source row with an enriched project record, get a free verified lead to test the workflow.

Methodology​

The unit of analysis is a sovereign-country entry, not a claim that every source is national. The country set contains 193 United Nations members plus the Holy See and the State of Palestine.

This map uses these categories:

• Asset-level public source: a free official source enumerating named assets, tokens, stablecoins, white papers, issuances, issuers, or accepted assets.
• Provider-oriented public source only: a public VASP, CASP, exchange, custodian, issuer, regulated-entity, authorised-resident, or sandbox-participant source without a centralized free asset list. This working category includes scope exceptions and does not claim that every source is a complete provider register.
• Regulatory framework / no public register: an official crypto, distributed-ledger, licensing, or anti-money-laundering framework without a stable free provider or asset register found.
• No register identified: no free crypto-specific public register identified as of 20 July 2026.

Use the appendices as a discovery map, not as a permanent legal-status list. They group the 195-country classification and supplementary sources by type and provide current links for the 12 asset-level routes. Recheck each official source before using a record because registers, page locations, and statuses can change.

Appendix A: Coverage summary​

Metric	Value
Dataset	Global Official Crypto Registers - Worldwide Inventory
As of	2026-07-20
Sovereign states covered	195
Country entries with a free official asset-level route	41
Supplementary national, territorial, and financial-zone rows	56

Classification	Country count	Share of 195
Asset-level public source	41	21.0%
Provider-oriented public source only	27	13.8%
Regulatory framework / no public register	12	6.2%
No register identified	115	59.0%

Appendix B: The 195-country classification​

Asset-level public sources: 41 countries through 12 routes​

The route table above is the source map. Its country coverage is:

• ESMA: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, and Sweden.
• Other national or nationally recognized routes: El Salvador, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Serbia, Seychelles, Thailand, and Uzbekistan.
• Limited-scope routes: Kazakhstan through AIFC, the United Arab Emirates through ADGM, and the United States through New York State.

Provider-oriented public sources: 27 countries​

For every country below, the public source identifies providers, firms, authorised residents, or sandbox participants, while no free asset-level list was identified. Ghana is a scope exception: its source is an official sandbox participant announcement, not a complete provider register.

Country	Public provider source
Andorra	AFA register search
Argentina	CNV PSAV register
Australia	AUSTRAC VASP register
Bahamas	Securities Commission registrant search
Bahrain	CBB licensing directory
Belarus	Belarus Hi-Tech Park residents
Botswana	NBFIRA VASP entities
Canada	FINTRAC MSB registry
Chile	CMF financial-service provider registry
Georgia	National Bank of Georgia VASPs
Ghana	SEC virtual-asset sandbox participants
Israel	Licensed virtual-currency financial-service providers
Kyrgyzstan	Financial-market service registers
Mauritius	FSC online public register
Mexico	CNBV authorised fintech institutions
Mongolia	FRC registered VASPs
Namibia	Bank of Namibia VASP participants
New Zealand	Financial Service Providers Register
Nigeria	SEC registered fintech operators
Philippines	BSP VASP list
Russia	Bank of Russia DFA operators
Singapore	MAS financial institutions directory
South Africa	FSCA regulated entities
Switzerland	FINMA authorised institutions, persons, and products
Türkiye	CMB crypto-asset service providers
United Kingdom	FCA cryptoasset register
Vanuatu	VFSC VASP information

Official framework without a public register: 12 countries​

Country	Official framework or regime
Albania	DLT financial-markets law
Barbados	FSC legislation and guidance
Brazil	Central Bank VASP authorisation regime
India	FIU-IND VDA registration materials
Kenya	CMA regulatory framework
Oman	FSA VASP registration framework
Pakistan	Ministry of Finance virtual-assets framework announcements
Qatar	QFC digital-assets framework
Saint Kitts and Nevis	Virtual Asset Act statutory registers
San Marino	Central Bank regulations
South Korea	KoFIU VASP regime
Ukraine	National Bank virtual-assets updates

No free crypto-specific public register identified: 115 countries​

As of 20 July 2026, no free official asset-level source or crypto-specific public register was identified for the countries below. This does not prove that a source does not exist, that it is not available in a local language, or that it is not exposed through a non-indexed portal.

Country 1	Country 2	Country 3	Country 4	Country 5
Afghanistan	Algeria	Angola	Antigua and Barbuda	Armenia
Azerbaijan	Bangladesh	Belize	Benin	Bhutan
Bolivia	Bosnia and Herzegovina	Brunei	Burkina Faso	Burundi
Cabo Verde	Cambodia	Cameroon	Central African Republic	Chad
China	Colombia	Comoros	Costa Rica	Cuba
Côte d’Ivoire	Democratic Republic of the Congo	Djibouti	Dominica	Dominican Republic
Ecuador	Egypt	Equatorial Guinea	Eritrea	Eswatini
Ethiopia	Fiji	Gabon	Gambia	Grenada
Guatemala	Guinea	Guinea-Bissau	Guyana	Haiti
Holy See	Honduras	Iran	Iraq	Jamaica
Jordan	Kiribati	Kuwait	Laos	Lebanon
Lesotho	Liberia	Libya	Madagascar	Malawi
Maldives	Mali	Marshall Islands	Mauritania	Federated States of Micronesia
Moldova	Monaco	Montenegro	Morocco	Mozambique
Myanmar	Nauru	Nepal	Nicaragua	Niger
North Korea	North Macedonia	Palau	Palestine	Panama
Papua New Guinea	Paraguay	Peru	Republic of the Congo	Rwanda
Saint Lucia	Saint Vincent and the Grenadines	Samoa	Saudi Arabia	Senegal
Sierra Leone	Solomon Islands	Somalia	South Sudan	Sri Lanka
Sudan	Suriname	Syria	São Tomé and Príncipe	Tajikistan
Tanzania	Timor-Leste	Togo	Tonga	Trinidad and Tobago
Tunisia	Turkmenistan	Tuvalu	Uganda	Uruguay
Venezuela	Vietnam	Yemen	Zambia	Zimbabwe

Appendix C: Verification notes​

Treat the 115 entries without an identified register as research leads rather than definitive conclusions. Check the relevant regulator, local-language sources, and non-indexed portals before deciding that no public register exists. For provider-oriented and framework-only groups, not public refers only to the absence of a free asset-level list.

The asset-route notes that most affect interpretation are:

• ESMA publishes several distinct MiCA datasets and warns that listed white papers are not approved by a competent authority.
• CFX is the supervised market operator publishing the Indonesian asset list. It should not be described as OJK itself.
• JVCEA is an FSA-recognized self-regulatory organization, and its explanatory-document reuse terms require review.
• Seychelles exposes a narrow ICO and NFT offering register, not a broad token inventory.
• Thailand's current source covers limited ICO transaction and base-pair uses, not every asset available for trading.
• ADGM, AIFC, and NYDFS have limited geographic or legal scope.
• NAPP records can contain personal contact fields that should not be republished without a clear basis.

Appendix D: 56 supplementary register rows​

The 56 supplementary rows cover national, territorial, and financial-zone sources that add provider, issuer, product, sandbox, or framework context. None provides a free asset-level list under the definition used in this map. Forty-six are provider-oriented. Ten use another classification.

Supplementary provider-oriented sources: 46 rows​

Country or jurisdiction	Official source	Authority	Scope note
Andorra	AFA register search	Andorran Financial Authority	Official register portal
Australia	AUSTRAC VASP register	AUSTRAC	National provider register
Bahamas	DARE registrant and licensee search	Securities Commission of The Bahamas	Digital-asset firms
Bahrain	CBB licensing directory	Central Bank of Bahrain	Crypto-asset service licensees
Belarus	Hi-Tech Park residents	Belarus Hi-Tech Park	Special crypto regime
Bermuda	BMA regulated entities	Bermuda Monetary Authority	Territorial digital-asset businesses
Botswana	NBFIRA VASP entities	NBFIRA	Regulated VASPs
Canada	FINTRAC MSB registry	FINTRAC	Virtual-currency dealing as an MSB activity
Cayman Islands	CIMA VASP source	Cayman Islands Monetary Authority	Territorial provider information
Chile	CMF financial-service provider registry	Comisión para el Mercado Financiero	National provider registry
Cyprus	CySEC CASP register	Cyprus Securities and Exchange Commission	National provider layer; ESMA supplies the regional asset route
El Salvador	CNAD service-provider register	Comisión Nacional de Activos Digitales	Provider layer; CNAD also publishes issuances
Estonia	Estonian supervised entities	Estonian Financial Supervision Authority	CASP, EMT, and ART filters
France	AMF DASP and CASP information	Autorité des marchés financiers	National provider information; ESMA supplies the regional asset route
Georgia	National Bank of Georgia VASPs	National Bank of Georgia	Registered VASPs
Gibraltar	GFSC DLT providers	Gibraltar Financial Services Commission	Territorial DLT providers
Guernsey	GFSC lending, credit, and finance source	Guernsey Financial Services Commission	Territorial VASP information
Hong Kong	SFC virtual-asset trading-platform lists	Securities and Futures Commission	Hong Kong licensed and applicant platforms
Israel	Licensed virtual-currency financial-service providers	Capital Market, Insurance and Savings Authority	Licensed providers
Japan	FSA registered crypto-asset exchanges	Financial Services Agency Japan	Provider layer; JVCEA publishes handled assets
Jersey	JFSC VASP entities	Jersey Financial Services Commission	Territorial VASP entities
Kazakhstan	AFSA public register	Astana Financial Services Authority	AIFC providers; AFSA separately publishes the Green List
Kyrgyzstan	Financial-market registers	Financial Market Regulation and Supervision Service	Official register portal
Liechtenstein	FMA MiCA and TT provider information	Financial Market Authority Liechtenstein	National provider layer; ESMA supplies the regional route
Malaysia	Registered digital-asset exchanges	Securities Commission Malaysia	Provider layer; the SC also lists tradeable assets
Mauritius	FSC online public register	Financial Services Commission Mauritius	VASP and issuer-related categories
Mexico	Authorised fintech institutions	CNBV	National fintech institutions
Mongolia	FRC registered VASPs	Financial Regulatory Commission	Official VASP PDF
Namibia	National payment-system participants	Bank of Namibia	Authorised or provisionally authorised VASPs
New Zealand	Financial Service Providers Register	New Zealand Companies Office	Broad provider register
Nigeria	Registered fintech operators	Securities and Exchange Commission Nigeria	Includes digital-asset operators
Norway	Finanstilsynet MiCA information	Financial Supervisory Authority of Norway	National supervision page pointing to ESMA
Philippines	BSP VASP list	Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas	Official VASP PDF
Russia	Bank of Russia DFA operators	Bank of Russia	Information-system operators
Serbia	Digital-token service providers	Securities Commission of Serbia	Provider layer; Serbia separately publishes white-paper decisions
Seychelles	Licensed VASPs	Financial Services Authority Seychelles	Provider layer; the FSA also publishes ICO and NFT offerings
Singapore	MAS financial institutions directory	Monetary Authority of Singapore	Filter for Digital Payment Token Service
South Africa	FSCA regulated entities	Financial Sector Conduct Authority	Crypto-asset service providers
Thailand	Thai SEC digital-asset businesses	Securities and Exchange Commission, Thailand	Provider and framework layer
Türkiye	CMB crypto-asset service providers	Capital Markets Board of Türkiye	Provider status and lists
United Arab Emirates	ADGM FSRA public register	Financial Services Regulatory Authority, ADGM	ADGM authorised firms
United Arab Emirates	VARA public register	Virtual Assets Regulatory Authority	Dubai, excluding DIFC
United Kingdom	FCA cryptoasset register	Financial Conduct Authority	Anti-money-laundering registration perimeter
United States	FinCEN MSB registrant search	Financial Crimes Enforcement Network	Federal MSB registration, not prudential approval
Uzbekistan	NAPP licensed service providers	National Agency of Perspective Projects	Provider layer; NAPP also publishes assets
Vanuatu	VFSC VASP information	Vanuatu Financial Services Commission	Licensing and public information

Other supplementary register and framework types: 10 rows​

Country or jurisdiction	Classification	Official source	Scope note
Hong Kong	Issuer-only register	HKMA licensed stablecoin issuers	Issuers, not a comprehensive token list
Bermuda	Issuer and framework source	BMA digital-asset issuance regime	Issuance framework, no central asset list identified
Switzerland	Provider and product directory	FINMA authorised institutions, persons, and products	Mixed official directories
United Arab Emirates	Framework, no current asset register	DFSA crypto-token framework	DIFC perimeter; former recognised-token list is no longer maintained
Albania	Framework, no public register	DLT financial-markets law	Licensing law, no asset list identified
Brazil	Framework, no public register	Central Bank VASP authorisation regime	No central asset list identified
India	Framework, no public register	FIU-IND VDA registration materials	Anti-money-laundering registration materials
Oman	Framework, no public register	FSA VASP registration framework	Official registration instructions
Saint Kitts and Nevis	Framework, no public web register	Virtual Asset Act	Law contemplates registers; current accessible list not located
Ghana	Sandbox participant list	SEC virtual-asset sandbox participants	Not a complete provider or asset register

The 56 rows cover 52 unique jurisdiction labels. Bermuda and Hong Kong each appear twice, and the United Arab Emirates appears three times, because the sheet records separate routes or legal perimeters.

Frequently asked questions​

What is an official crypto asset register?​

It is a public source maintained by an authority or officially recognized body that enumerates named assets, issuers, white papers, issuances, accepted tokens, or similar records. The legal meaning depends on the source. A register entry is not a universal approval or safety rating.

How is an asset-level register different from a VASP or CASP register?​

An asset-level source identifies an asset, issuance, issuer, or white paper. A VASP or CASP register identifies regulated service providers or companies. A provider entry usually does not disclose every asset that the company supports.

Which countries use the ESMA MiCA register?​

The route covers 30 European Economic Area states: all 27 EU members plus Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway. National authorities may provide local guidance or provider information, but ESMA is the shared regional register route used in this map.

Can these sources help find licensed crypto companies by country?​

Provider registers can help identify registered, authorised, licensed, supervised, or sandboxed entities, depending on the exact regime. Preserve the source's wording. Do not automatically rewrite an anti-money-laundering registration as a full license or prudential approval.

Why do so many countries have no public crypto register?​

A country may have a general law, a non-public process, a local-language portal, or a source that search engines do not index. No register identified records the search result, not proof that no data or legal framework exists.

Does a register entry mean a project or asset is approved or safe?​

No. An entry may be a notification, publication decision, issuance registration, accepted-asset status, handled-asset record, provider registration, or another narrow legal fact. None of those facts alone proves safety, quality, performance, or suitability.

How often should B2B teams recheck register data?​

There is no universal recheck schedule. Record every retrieval date, monitor event-rich sources at a cadence that matches the campaign, and recheck the specific entry before using an old status in qualification, outreach, or compliance work.

How do you turn a register entry into a verified lead?​

Capture the source and scope, resolve the entity and project, verify the website and relevant asset identifiers, enrich current public business contacts, deduplicate, apply filters and suppression, then qualify one evidence-based service-fit question. The public record is the start of the research chain, not the completed lead.

Is it legal to contact companies found in official registers?​

A public record does not create blanket permission to contact an entity. The lawful basis, permitted channel, data handling, message relevance, disclosure, opt-out, and suppression duties depend on the jurisdictions and circumstances. Review current rules and obtain legal advice where needed.