The Fintech Regulatory Futures Index benchmarks how well regulatory frameworks keep pace with financial innovation — across markets, jurisdictions, and emerging technologies.
40+
Jurisdictions tracked
38
Working Group members
5
Methodology pillars
9mo
Methodology phase
Pillars
What we measure
Five domains covering the full regulatory environment for digital financial services.
01
Rules Clarity
Whether regulatory frameworks are legible, predictable, and consistently applied.
02
Consumer Protection
Redress mechanisms, disclosure standards, and safeguards for users of digital financial services.
03
Innovation
How well regulatory environments enable responsible experimentation, new market entry, and technology adoption.
04
Financial Inclusion & Market Access
Frameworks that expand participation for underserved populations and non-traditional providers.
05
Resilience & Integrity
Systemic stability, AML/CFT standards, operational resilience, and enforcement credibility.
Timeline
Project phases
Nine months to build the methodology. One year to score and rank.
Month 1–2
Framework inception
Executive Committee confirms pillars, guiding principles, and project scope
In progress
Month 3–6
Working Group builds
Pillar modules, indicator matrices, and scoring rubrics drafted and stress-tested
Upcoming
Month 7–9
Methodology v1.0 endorsed
Executive Committee review, Methodology Note published, implementation plan finalized
Upcoming
Year 2
Country scoring & ranking
40+ jurisdictions assessed, QA process, global findings launch
2026–27
About the Index
Why this index. Why now.
Fintech regulation can differ in substance and areas of emphasis — but there's no credible, neutral benchmark to track it. The FRFI, the work product of dozens of the world's fintech experts, changes that.
⚡
The problem
Policymakers, investors, and innovators lack a rigorous, comparable measure of fintech regulatory quality. Existing rankings conflate financial stability indicators with fintech-specific frameworks — or measure ease of business rather than regulatory appropriateness for digital financial services.
🎯
What we do differently
The FRFI is built bottom-up: domain experts define what "good" looks like within each pillar before any country is scored. The result is a methodology-first approach that produces defensible, reproducible rankings — not black-box scores.
Guiding principles
Every design choice in the Index is governed by four core principles:
Neutrality — no funder, partner, or jurisdiction can influence a country's score
Transparency — methodology, evidence standards, and scoring rationales are fully public
Evidence-based scoring — every indicator is tied to verifiable, documented sources
Global applicability — indicators are designed to work across legal traditions, income levels, and regional contexts
Governance
How the index is built.
Three components. Low burden for senior leaders. Fast-moving at the working level.
Executive Committee
Advisory
The Executive Committee advises at inception, provides high-level guidance at key checkpoints, and participates in the public-facing launch narrative. It is not responsible for day-to-day operations or methodology drafting.
3
meetings, 30 minutes each
Over the nine-month methodology phase · optional written feedback between meetings
Working Groups are the engine of the nine-month phase. They build and refine the methodology modules that together form the Index's final Methodology v1.0. Groups meet biweekly and work from standardized templates.
Indicator Matrix: scoring rubric + evidence requirements per indicator
E
Worked examples: rubric applied to 2–3 jurisdictions
L
Evidence log template: standard source documentation format
Secretariat
Operational
The Secretariat ensures the project runs on time, keeps Working Groups aligned, and removes bottlenecks — especially around recruitment and coordination of the nine-month methodology phase.
Member recruitment mix
Public sector regulators & central banksFintechs & infrastructure providersAcademic researchersFormer regulators & supervisorsSelect professional services
Executive Committee
The senior voices supporting our work.
A diverse group of global leaders from central banking, financial markets, fintech, and multilateral institutions — advising on purpose, framework, and findings.
3
meetings total
30
min per meeting
9
month phase
Low burden by design. Members advise at inception, provide checkpoint guidance, and participate in the public launch — they do not manage operations, draft indicators, or negotiate country scores.
Confirmed members
Working Group
The methodology builders.
38 practitioners, academics, and former regulators from across the globe — defining what good fintech regulation looks like, one pillar at a time.
filter38 members
Methodology
Open, rigorous, reproducible.
The methodology is being built in public. Track module progress and access published components as they are completed.
Pillar modules
Outputs of the methodology phase
By the end of nine months, the project delivers four public-facing outputs:
📄 Methodology v1.0 — public methodology note with all pillar modules
📋 Evidence standards — documentation rules for the implementation year
🗺️ Implementation plan — country scoring, QA, and ranking process for Year 2
Have Your Say
Help shape the methodology.
The FRFI is built in public and improved by the people who know fintech regulation best. Tell us what we're missing — or how we can do better.
Critique the methodology
Tell us where our thinking falls short
Have you spotted a gap, an inconsistency, or an indicator that doesn't travel well across legal traditions or income levels? We want to hear it. Rigorous critique makes the Index more credible.
Thank you — your feedback has been received and will be reviewed by the Working Group.
Suggest what we should measure
Propose a new indicator or dimension
Is there a regulatory issue, technology, or market dynamic that you think the Index should track but currently doesn't? Suggest a new indicator, sub-dimension, or area of focus — and tell us why it matters.
Thank you — your suggestion has been received and will be reviewed by the Working Group.
All submissions are reviewed by the Working Group Secretariat. We cannot respond to every submission individually, but all feedback is logged and considered during methodology refinement. Submissions may be referenced anonymously in methodology notes.