Scoring CASPs & Jurisdictions: What Data Is Actually Available
Most crypto exchange rankings mix opaque subjective scores with public data. This article maps what the ESMA MiCA Register actually contains, what can be objectively scored, and how Micahub builds transparent jurisdiction and CASP indices from verifiable sources only.
Methodology article explaining Micahub's MiCA Jurisdiction Readiness Index and CASP Transparency & Scope Index. Covers ESMA weekly CSV sources (CASPS, NCASP, EMTWP, ARTZZ, OTHER), Tier 1 objectively scorable metrics (licensing volume/velocity, service complexity, passporting export rate, non-compliant counts, EMT activity, CASP service breadth, entity type Art 60 vs 63, track record), Tier 2 inferred overlays (published NCA timelines, grandfathering clarity, whitepaper transparency), and Tier 3 explicitly excluded metrics (DORA readiness, custody quality, AML effectiveness, capital adequacy, governance). Links to jurisdiction comparison, methodology page, and raw JSON downloads.
Scoring CASPs & Jurisdictions: What Data Is Actually Available Most crypto "exchange rankings" mix objective data with opaque subjective scores. Under MiCA, the picture is clearer than many assume — but narrower than marketing suggests. This article maps what the ESMA Interim MiCA Register actually contains, what national competent authorities publish, and how Micahub builds its Jurisdiction Readiness Index and CASP Transparency & Scope Index from verifiable public data only. What ESMA publishes every week ESMA releases five CSV files that Micahub refreshes every Saturday: CASPS.csv — authorised Crypto Asset Service Providers: legal name, LEI (when available), home member state, authorisation date, authorised services (10 MiCA categories), passporting notifications to host member states, and comments (including Article 60 pathway references). NCASP.csv — non compliant entities flagged by NCAs. EMTWP.csv and ARTZZ.csv — e money and asset referenced token issuers. OTHER.csv — OTHR crypto asset white paper notifications. This is rich structural data. It is not a compliance examination. The register does not contain capital adequacy ratios, DORA incident history, AML examination results, custody implementation details, or governance assessments. What can be scored objectively (Tier 1) From the CASP file alone, Micahub computes: Jurisdiction level metrics Licensing volume and velocity (new authorisations per quarter, trend direction) Average service complexity per NCA Passporting export rate (% of home CASPs operating cross border) Non compliant entity counts (transparency of NCA enforcement reporting to ESMA) EMT issuer activity CASP level metrics Service breadth (1–10 authorised MiCA services) Passporting reach (number of host member states) Entity type (Article 60 existing financial entity vs Article 63 CASP authorisation) Track record (time since authorisation, penalised if on the non compliant register) These feed the indices on our jurisdiction comparison page and on individual CASP entity pages. Full weights and normalization are documented on the methodology page. What requires inference (Tier 2) Some useful context exists outside the register but needs labeling as editorial or inferred: Published NCA timelines — from Micahub jurisdiction guides (e.g. Lithuania 3–6 months published range). These are not observed processing times. Grandfathering deadline clarity — from ESMA transitional schedules and NCA announcements. Whitepaper transparency — OTHR register name matches; MiCA Crypto Alliance scores where issuers match our curated archive. Tier 2 metrics are shown separately and are not blended into the headline Tier 1 composite index. What cannot be scored (Tier 3) We explicitly do not score: DORA readiness or ICT resilience Custody segregation quality AML/CFT program effectiveness Capital adequacy beyond entity type proxies Governance quality or market abuse surveillance Attempting to score these from public data would be speculation. Micahub's differentiation is radical transparency: every Tier 1 score traces to a public ESMA field. How to use the indices The Jurisdiction Readiness Index helps compare regulatory market structure — how many CASPs an NCA has authorised, passporting activity, enforcement transparency — not which country is "best" for your business. The CASP Transparency & Scope Index measures public regulatory scope from register fields. It is not a safety rating or a recommendation to use a platform. For API access, historical score snapshots, CSV export, and change alerts, see Register Pro. Raw data Download the computed indices and source register JSON: jurisdiction scores.json casp transparency scores.json casps.json Questions or corrections: hello@micahub.net.