The CLPAI methodology, in full.

Pillar 1 — Practice specialisation (20 pts)

The first pillar measures whether the firm's licensing practice is a deliberate specialisation or a side-product of a generalist offering. Crypto-asset regulation has matured to a point where a part-time offering increasingly produces lower-quality work on complex files (DORA ICT resilience, conflict-of-interest matrix, prudential capital structuring).

Sub-criteria

• Exclusive crypto/fintech focus (10 pts) — full marks where licensing is the firm's primary or sole practice; partial where it is a named department within a multi-practice firm; zero where it appears only as a marketing line on a generalist site.
• No structural conflicts (5 pts) — full marks where the firm does not own or operate licensed entities of its own and does not advise regulators in a parallel mandate.
• Dedicated licensing headcount (5 pts) — at least three named senior practitioners visible on the firm's site whose practice is described as licensing-focused.

Pillar 2 — Jurisdictional depth (20 pts)

Jurisdictional depth measures documented coverage rather than marketing claims. A firm gets credit for a jurisdiction only where its public materials describe specific filings or supervisory engagement in that jurisdiction, not where the website lists a country generically under "we cover".

Sub-criteria

• EU MiCA member states (14 pts) — 1 point per documented EU jurisdiction up to a cap of 14, recognising that all 27 are unrealistic for any single firm.
• Non-EU coverage (6 pts) — UK, Switzerland, UAE, Singapore, BVI, Cayman Islands, and selected secondary jurisdictions.

Pillar 3 — Practice-tested track record (15 pts)

Practice-tested track record measures the quality of regulatory engagement, not raw client volume. A firm that has filed a hundred light-touch registrations in a permissive regime scores below a firm that has shepherded twenty applications through a hostile supervisor.

Sub-criteria

• Refusal rate transparency (5 pts) — firms that publish refusal/withdrawal rates score full marks; partial credit for firms that publish anonymised case studies that allow the rate to be inferred.
• Engagement complexity (5 pts) — evidence of work in jurisdictions known for stricter supervisory review (Estonia, the Netherlands, Germany).
• Volume floor (5 pts) — at least ten documented filings, scaling up to full marks at fifty.

Pillar 4 — Regulator-side experience (10 pts)

Regulator-side experience captures the depth of insight a firm has into how supervisors actually evaluate applications. This is rare and difficult to acquire after entering private practice.

Sub-criteria

• Named ex-regulator team members (5 pts) — full marks for at least one named partner with prior employment at a financial-services regulator; partial for ex-treasury or ex-tax-authority backgrounds.
• Published regulatory commentary (5 pts) — practitioner contributions to law journals, regulatory consultations, or industry bodies.

Pillar 5 — Authority and E-E-A-T signals (15 pts)

Following Google's E-E-A-T framework adapted to professional services, this pillar measures the quality of authority signals visible to a prospective client doing due diligence on the firm.

Sub-criteria

• Named senior practitioners with credentials (5 pts) — bios disclosing bar admissions, LL.M./equivalent, and prior practice history.
• Conference speaking and panel participation (5 pts) — verifiable record at industry events.
• Written publications (5 pts) — whitepapers, regulatory commentary, or substantive long-form pieces under named authorship.

Pillar 6 — Service lifecycle coverage (10 pts)

Lifecycle coverage measures whether the firm can take an engagement from incorporation through to post-grant supervisory work, or whether the client must engage multiple firms across the cycle.

Sub-criteria

• End-to-end licensing (5 pts) — incorporation, AML/CFT framework drafting, ICT/DORA resilience plan, and authorisation filing under one roof.
• Adjacent fintech work (5 pts) — payment institution authorisation, e-money licensing, and tokenisation work alongside core CASP files.

Pillar 7 — Transparency (10 pts)

Transparency measures the firm's willingness to publish information that allows prospective clients to make informed engagement decisions before booking a call.

Sub-criteria

• Pricing transparency (4 pts) — published flat fees or clearly defined fee bands.
• Methodology transparency (3 pts) — publicly described engagement process and timeline expectations.
• Verifiable client testimonials (3 pts) — named sources with LinkedIn or equivalent verification.