Our Methodology
How we research, verify, and maintain the most comprehensive Bitcoin regulatory intelligence registry.
Data-Driven Approach
BitcoinRegistry uses a schema-first, data-driven methodology to ensure accuracy, consistency, and transparency. Every piece of information in our registry follows a rigorous research and validation process.
Our approach is inspired by financial ratings agencies—applying systematic research methodologies to the Bitcoin ecosystem with full transparency about our sources and confidence levels.
Research Process
1. Primary Source Research
We prioritize primary sources: regulator websites, official guidance documents, court rulings, and issuer disclosures. Secondary sources are used only when primary sources are unavailable.
2. Multi-Source Verification
Critical claims require verification from multiple independent sources. We document all sources with URLs, archive links, and confidence ratings.
3. Confidence Assessment
Every claim is assigned a confidence level: High (primary sources), Medium (issuer disclosures/analysis), or Low (secondary reporting).
4. Continuous Monitoring
Regulatory landscapes change rapidly. We monitor official sources continuously and update information within 24 hours of significant changes.
YMYL Compliance Standards
BitcoinRegistry content falls under Google's "Your Money, Your Life" (YMYL) category because it can impact financial decisions and legal compliance. We adhere to strict standards:
Source Everything
Every factual claim links to a primary source. No unsupported statements.
Confidence Transparency
We clearly label confidence levels: High, Medium, or Low. Users know how much to trust each claim.
No Advisory Language
We describe what IS, not what you SHOULD do. No "recommended," "safe," or "must" language.
Archive Permanence
All sources archived via Archive.org for permanence. If original sources move, our citations remain valid.
Understanding Confidence Levels
High Confidence
Based on primary sources: regulator guidance, legislation, court rulings, official issuer disclosures.
Example: SEC approval of spot Bitcoin ETFs (January 2024)
Medium Confidence
Based on issuer disclosures, reputable legal analysis, or multiple corroborating secondary sources.
Example: MiCA classification analysis pending ESMA guidance
Low Confidence
Based on secondary reporting, interpretation, or limited available information. May change with better sources.
Example: Specific implementation details not yet published
Open Data Schema
All our data is stored in structured JSON files with a public schema. This enables:
bitcoin-assets.json- Asset definitions and metadatacustodians.json- Custodian profiles and licensesjurisdictions.json- Jurisdiction regulatory frameworksstatus-matrix.json- Regulatory status by asset/jurisdictionchangelog.json- Complete audit trail of all changesOpen Source: Our entire dataset and schema are available on GitHub. Researchers, developers, and other projects are welcome to use our data under the MIT license.
Limitations & Uncertainties
We are transparent about what we don't know and the limitations of our data:
- MiCA Classification: ESMA has not issued definitive guidance on wrapped Bitcoin classification. We document this as genuinely unresolved.
- Jurisdiction Coverage: We focus on major jurisdictions first. Smaller markets may have limited coverage initially.
- Regulatory Evolution: Regulations change. Last verified dates indicate when information was last confirmed.
- Not Legal Advice: Our analysis is informational. Always consult qualified legal professionals for advice specific to your situation.
Help Us Improve
Found an error? Have additional information? We welcome contributions from the community to make BitcoinRegistry the most accurate and comprehensive resource available.