Section for the Regulator-Grade Guidance Document Research Date: June 2026 (refresh)
1. LICENSING MODELS — Global Taxonomy
This analysis covers 27 jurisdictions (including three regional aggregates — Southeast Asia, Nordic Countries, and Africa (Emerging)). Mirroring the verified per-jurisdiction legal-status data, the global regulatory landscape for cryptocurrency mining falls into six distinct models, ranging from fully permissive to outright prohibition. Each model reflects a jurisdiction's policy priorities — energy security, revenue generation, environmental protection, financial system integrity, or industrial development.
Legal-status snapshot across the 27 covered jurisdictions:
- Mining legal, no mining-specific licence/registration: the large majority — including Germany, Georgia, Singapore, Australia, European Union (solo self-mining), France, United Kingdom, Japan, Brazil, Argentina, and South Africa. The United States has no federal mining ban or licence (state-level variation only).
- Registration-only regimes: United States — Texas (PUCT), Russia (FTS registry), Paraguay (MIC/ANDE/SEPRELAD), and Norway (Nkom data-centre registry).
- Full licensing regimes: Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan (legal entities only), and Nigeria (SEC, within the Africa (Emerging) aggregate).
- Special zone / commercial-licence regimes: Bhutan (Gelephu Mindfulness City for private mining) and the UAE free zones.
- State-directed mining: Bhutan (Druk Holding & Investments) and El Salvador (state geothermal program).
- Outright ban / grid disconnection: 2 of 27 — China (comprehensive ban) and Venezuela (grid-mining ban). Canada provinces and Norway add sub-national or proposed bans without a national prohibition.
- Ambiguous / gray zone (neither clear permission nor prohibition): Saudi Arabia — no mining-specific law, licence, or ban.
- Punitive-but-legal (no ban, but tax effectively deters mining): India.
1.1 No License Required (Permissive / Tax-Only Regimes)
Germany
Legal status: Mining is legal and does NOT require any licensing or registration. The general business and tax authorities apply; BaFin (Federal Financial Supervisory Authority) supervises EU/MiCA CASP activity, but there is no mining-specific regulator. As of 2026 there is no proof-of-work restriction and no energy-usage quota.
Governing framework: General business law plus the EStG tax code, with the Federal Ministry of Finance (BMF) letter of 6 March 2025 providing the governing tax guidance. Under the EU Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA), Regulation (EU) 2023/1114, pure cryptocurrency mining is not treated as a financial service.
Threshold triggering regulation: A BaFin/CASP authorisation is triggered only where the operator crosses into a regulated crypto-asset service (e.g., operating a pool with custody, or commercial exchange/market-making) — not by the act of mining itself.
Tax obligations: Private mining is "other income" under §22 no. 3 EStG, taxed at receipt on EUR market value (progressive up to 45%). Holdings sold after a one-year holding period are tax-free (§23 EStG); commercial mining may constitute a Gewerbebetrieb subject to trade tax.
Sources:
- Blockchain & Cryptocurrency Laws 2026 | Germany — Global Legal Insights
- Regulation of Crypto Businesses in Germany — WINHELLER
- Is Crypto Legal in Germany? — Lightspark
Georgia (Country)
Legal status: Legal and tax-favorable — one of the most attractive mining jurisdictions globally. The Law on Virtual Asset Service Providers (VASP), effective July 2023 and supervised by the National Bank of Georgia (NBG), explicitly exempts individual miners and mining-pool participants from VASP registration and compliance obligations.
Threshold triggering regulation: Commercial entities exchanging or holding assets for others must register as VASPs; individual miners are exempt. There is no ban, but in 2026 Georgia launched targeted enforcement against illegal (unmetered / grid-stealing) mining in the Svaneti/Mestia region — directed at unlawful power use, not at the legality of mining itself.
Tax treatment: Individual crypto profits are completely tax-free (0% income tax, 0% VAT on crypto). Corporate entities follow the Estonian model — 15% tax only on distributed profit, 0% while reinvested.
Sources:
- Crypto Mining in Georgia — Nomos Law Firm
- Georgia Country Crypto Tax Guide — Gegidze
- Is Crypto Legal in Georgia? — Lightspark
Singapore
Legal status: Legal; no mining-specific regulations exist. Under the Payment Services Act 2019 (PSA) and the Financial Services and Markets Act (FSMA) Part 9, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) regulates Digital Payment Token (DPT) services. Pure solo mining for one's own account is unlicensed; mining that crosses into DPT services may trigger PSA/FSMA licensing. The Energy Market Authority (EMA) regulates electricity.
Threshold triggering regulation: If a mining operation sells hash power, operates a pool with custodial elements, or provides exchange/custody services, it falls under PSA/FSMA licensing.
Note: Singapore focuses regulatory resources on the financial intermediation layer (exchanges, wallets) rather than the production layer (mining), but high electricity cost, land scarcity, a tropical climate, and a carbon tax make it structurally unsuitable for mining.
Sources:
- Singapore Crypto Regulations — Signzy
- Blockchain & Cryptocurrency Laws 2026 | Singapore — Global Legal Insights
- Is Crypto Mining Legal in Singapore? — MEXC
Australia
Legal status: Legal; treated as ordinary commercial activity, with no mining-specific statute. ASIC regulates financial products, AUSTRAC handles AML/CTF, and the ATO handles tax — but there is no miner-specific regulator, ban, or licensing requirement. Mining is not an AUSTRAC-designated service, so miners are not registered as such.
Incoming framework: The Corporations Amendment (Digital Assets Framework) Act 2026 received Royal Assent on 8 April 2026 (commencing 9 April 2027), creating AFSL-based licensing for Digital Asset Platforms and Tokenised Custody Platforms — not for mining.
Tax treatment: Business mining is ordinary income at the full marginal rate on AUD fair market value at receipt (mined crypto = trading stock); a 50% CGT discount applies to disposal gains for assets held >12 months.
Sources:
- ASIC — INFO 225: Crypto-Asset-Related Investments
- ATO — Crypto Asset Investments
- AUSTRAC — Digital Currency Exchange Providers
European Union (Solo Self-Mining)
Legal status: Legal — mining is not directly regulated or banned under MiCA; solo self-mining is unregulated. ESMA coordinates at EU level with National Competent Authorities (NCAs); the EBA supervises ART/EMT issuers. A proof-of-work ban proposal was rejected by the ECON Committee in March 2022 (30–23), in favour of a disclosure-based approach.
Threshold triggering regulation: Solo mining is not a regulated CASP activity. Pools, custody, and hashrate sales trigger CASP authorisation. The MiCA transitional period ends 1 July 2026 (a hard stop with no further extensions per ESMA, April 2026).
Sources:
France
Legal status: Legal — no mining-specific regulation. The AMF (Autorité des marchés financiers) supervises the PACTE-Act DASP framework, transitioning to MiCA CASP through 1 July 2026. There are no mining-specific restrictions beyond standard tax, energy, and business rules. A proposed 5-year experiment (RN bill, 11 July 2025) to use surplus nuclear electricity for bitcoin mining remains proposed, not enacted.
Tax treatment: Mining income is taxed as non-commercial profit (BNC), progressive to 45%; the flat tax (PFU) on disposals rose to 31.4% from 1 January 2026.
Sources:
United Kingdom
Legal status: Legal — mining itself is NOT a regulated activity under current UK law. The FCA oversees crypto financial activity, HMRC handles tax, Ofgem handles energy, and the Environment Agency handles environmental permits. The FSMA 2000 (Cryptoassets) Regulations 2026 (passed 4 February 2026) build out the new authorisation regime but omit mining. Crypto ATMs are effectively banned; mining is not.
Threshold triggering regulation: Mining-only operations require no crypto-specific licence; FCA registration is triggered only if the operator also runs an exchange, custody, ATM, or staking-as-a-service. The FCA's CP26/13 perimeter-guidance consultation (opened 15 April 2026) makes no mention of mining or PoW.
Sources:
Japan
Legal status: Legal; mining is not specifically restricted — no mining-specific bans, registration, or energy caps. The Financial Services Agency (FSA) is the regulator. Crypto trading is governed by the Payment Services Act (PSA), with derivatives under the FIEA; an April 2026 Cabinet bill proposes moving spot trading from the PSA to the FIEA (proposed, not in force, expected ~fiscal 2027). The reclassification would add insider/unfair-trading prohibitions and raise unregistered-operation penalties — but does not create a mining licence.
Tax treatment: Mining income is currently miscellaneous income (progressive to ~55% top combined). A 2026 reform enacting a flat ~20% separate-assessment regime applies from 1 January 2028; whether mined crypto qualifies is not yet verified.
Sources:
Brazil
Legal status: Legal; mining is not prohibited and not directly regulated by the BCB VASP resolutions — only general tax and sector rules apply. The Central Bank of Brazil (BCB) authorises VASPs; the Receita Federal (RFB) handles tax. There is no mining-specific licensing; only custody/intermediation operators fall under VASP authorisation (BCB Resolutions 519/520/521, effective 2 February 2026, with a 270-day authorisation window ending 30 October 2026).
Note: Enforcement focuses on electricity-theft mining (lawful where power is properly paid). A São Paulo operation (20 May 2026) had ~1,400 rigs seized for stealing ~2 GWh.
Sources:
Argentina
Legal status: Legal; not specifically prohibited or restricted at the federal level — a lawful commercial activity with no dedicated mining licensing regime. The Comisión Nacional de Valores (CNV) regulates VASPs/PSAV; the UIF handles AML. There is no federal ban, moratorium, or hashrate cap; the PSAV regime (Law 27,739 of March 2024; CNV RG 1058/2025, fully effective 31 December 2025) regulates virtual-asset services, not mining per se.
Note: Electricity-market reform (Decretos 450/451/452/2025) toward marginal-cost pricing enables dollar-denominated bilateral PPAs for large consumers, including miners.
Sources:
South Africa
Legal status: Legal — no mining-specific prohibition. Mining is not banned and not separately licensed; there is no dedicated mining licence, hashrate cap, or miner registration regime. The FSCA licenses CASPs (crypto as a financial product under the FAIS Act); the FIC handles AML/Travel Rule; SARS handles tax/CARF; Eskom and Nersa handle energy. Only general tax, AML, and electricity-supply rules apply.
Threshold triggering regulation: CASP licensing applies only where a miner also provides crypto-asset services. SARS (Budget 2026, 20 March 2026) reaffirmed mining income is taxed under normal rules (up to 45% marginal).
Sources:
1.2 Registration-Only Regimes
Registration models require miners to notify the government and submit periodic data without undergoing a substantive licensing review. They prioritize visibility over gatekeeping.
United States — Texas (PUCT Registration)
Legal status: No federal mining ban or licence. At the state level, Texas operates a registration regime. PoW mining is not a securities activity (SEC Staff, March 2025) and is framed as "administrative/ministerial" in Senate CLARITY Act text; the FinCEN MSB exemption applies to mining for one's own purposes.
Legal basis: Public Utility Regulatory Act (PURA) §39.360, enacted via Senate Bill 1929 (88th Texas Legislature, 2023). The Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUCT) adopted implementing rules effective November 2024.
Threshold: Virtual currency mining facilities within the ERCOT region consuming more than 75 MW with at least 10% interruptible load must register.
Information required: Physical location; ownership structure; form of business organization; electricity consumption data and demand projections.
Penalties: Non-compliance is a Class A violation, with fines up to $25,000 per violation per day.
Sources:
- Texas Tribune — Crypto miners must register with state (Nov 2024)
- PUCT — Virtual Currency Mining Facility Registration Page
- 88th Legislature SB 1929 — Bill Text
Norway (Data Center Registry)
Legal status: Legal, but the most restrictive of the Nordics in trajectory. Norway's Data Centre Regulation (effective 1 January 2025) requires all data-centre operators, including cryptocurrency miners, to register with the Norwegian Communications Authority (Nkom) (owner, contact, services). On 12 March 2026 the Storting asked the Government to return with a formal legislative proposal for a ban on crypto-mining data centres and rejected a proposed national licensing/concession regime — no ban is yet in force.
Information required: Ownership and contact details, type of digital services offered; proposed amendments add customer and equipment-location data.
Penalties: A proposed infringement fee for non-compliance (specific turnover-percentage figures removed as unverified).
Sources:
- DLA Piper — Proposed Changes to the Norwegian Data Center Regulation
- Norway Takes the Register to Keep Out Cryptominers — DCD
Russia (Federal Tax Service Registry)
Legal status: Legal since 1 November 2024 under Law No. 221-FZ (signed 8 August 2024) — mining is a regulated economic activity. The Federal Tax Service (FTS) administers the mining registry; the Ministry of Digital Development and Ministry of Energy are involved in the framework.
Two-tier threshold:
- Individual (non-commercial) miners: Consumption below 6,000 kWh/month — no registration required, but personal income tax applies to mined cryptocurrency.
- Industrial miners and Mining Infrastructure Operators: Must register in the Federal Tax Service registry and submit reports. From 30 May 2026 (Government Decree No. 556), registry entries must include IP-address data.
Restrictions: Regional mining bans are permitted in energy-shortage areas (framework runs through 2031). Seasonal Siberian bans in Irkutsk, plus Buryatia and Zabaikalsky Krai, were imposed 15 November 2025 and expired 15 March 2026; Russia has signalled no new regional bans in 2026 (citing flat 2025 electricity consumption).
Registered-miner counts (corrected): Active mining farms grew ~44% in 2025 to ~196,900 (FTS AI energy-monitoring count; industry/state-reported). Registration compliance remained low — only about 30% of miners registered by mid-2025, leaving an estimated ~70% (roughly 140,000–200,000 farms) unregistered.
Penalties (proposed, not enacted): Criminal Code amendments contemplate fines up to 1.5M rubles plus up to 2 years of forced labour (standard), rising to up to 5 years and 2.5M rubles for organized illegal mining.
Sources:
- Interfax — Putin signs bill legalizing cryptocurrency mining
- CoinTelegraph — Has Russia really "legalized" cryptocurrency mining?
- Brace Law Firm — Cryptocurrency Mining Regulation in Russia: Legal Guide
Paraguay (Mandatory Miner Registration)
Legal status: Legal and actively supported, but governed by a piecemeal framework — a 2022 comprehensive mining bill was vetoed. The MIC handles licensing, ANDE handles electricity/enforcement, SEPRELAD handles AML, and DNIT handles tax. Mandatory registration of all Bitcoin miners with the state was imposed in December 2024 (register with MIC and SEPRELAD), and miners are classified as "Obligated Subjects" under SEPRELAD Resolution 8/2020.
Tax/reporting: DNIT General Resolution 47/26 (in force 2026) requires wallet-level crypto reporting for transactions >$5,000/year, explicitly covering mining.
Penalties: A July 2024 law established up to 10 years' imprisonment for electricity theft tied to unauthorized mining. Illegal mining is estimated at 28.5% of national consumption ($60M/yr stolen); 2024 enforcement included 17+ raids and 10,000+ ASICs seized.
Sources:
- Bitcoin Mining in Paraguay 2025 — MoveToParaguay
- TEDIC — Energy and Cryptocurrency in Paraguay
- MEXC News — Paraguay orders Bitcoin miners to register with state
1.3 Full Licensing Regimes
Full licensing requires substantive application review, capital adequacy, compliance infrastructure, and ongoing supervision.
Kazakhstan (National Mining Licence)
Legal status: Legal and regulated — a recognised, separately-classified economic activity. Following Law No. 231-VIII of 17 November 2025 (amending the Law on Digital Assets, Law No. 193-VII of 6 February 2023; in force ~mid-January 2026), mining was legalised nationwide beyond the Astana International Financial Centre (AIFC). Only Kazakhstan-registered individuals and legal entities may mine (a localisation requirement); unlicensed mining is illegal.
License details: Mining requires accreditation/licensing, historically via the AIFC (which issued 84 licences / ~415,000 machines, industry/government-reported); licences run 3 years.
Mandatory asset sales (corrected — REPEALED): A former requirement to sell mined assets via licensed exchanges — 50% from January 2024 and 75% from January 2025 — was repealed. Law No. 231-VIII (Nov 2025) repealed the mandatory-domestic-sales quota (former Art. 8(4)) and reclassified mining as distinct from digital-asset turnover.
Electricity: A digital-mining fee (electricity surcharge) of 2 tenge/kWh standard applies (1 tenge/kWh for renewables/off-grid; 25 tenge/kWh penalty for unmetered), per Tax Code No. 214-VIII ZRK. Certified meters are required, and operations face curtailment during national electricity shortages.
Sources:
- Morgan Lewis — Kazakhstan Introduces New Regulation of Digital Assets
- Caspian News — Kazakhstan Lifts Restrictions on Crypto Mining, Trading (Nov 2025)
- JURIST — How Kazakhstan's New Digital Asset Law Could Pave the Way
Uzbekistan (NAPP Permit)
Legal status: Legal, strictly licensed — only legal entities may mine; individual mining is not permitted. The National Agency of Perspective Projects (NAPP), subordinated directly to the President's administration, issues mining permits (rules adopted fall 2023). Anonymous mining, anonymous crypto-assets, and circulation of previously issued crypto-assets are prohibited.
Key requirements:
- Permits issued by NAPP after a 15-day fee-free review, as electronic certificates with QR codes (industry/media-reported); miners report all activities, equipment, and wallets to NAPP.
- Mining proceeds must be credited to bank accounts in Uzbekistan, with mined crypto sold via licensed exchanges.
- Grid access requires a separate meter; unified-grid electricity carries double (increased) tariffs plus peak-hour surcharges, incentivizing renewables (the original 2023 solar-only mandate was relaxed to also allow wind, hydrogen, and grid power).
Special zone: The Besqala Mining Valley (resolution No. 8146414, 17 April 2026) grants a 10-year tax holiday (exempt until 1 January 2035; instead a monthly fee of 1% of revenue), with a minimum charter capital of 5,000 BCU (~$170,800) for zone residency. The first private permit went to NexaGrid (order dated 19 January 2026, announced February 2026).
Sources:
- Kursiv Media — Uzbekistan Tightens Crypto Mining Rules (Feb 2026)
- Cryptopolitan — Uzbekistan issues first crypto mining permit
- Crypto.news — Uzbekistan Sets Regulations for Crypto Miners
Nigeria (SEC License under ISA 2025)
Legal status: Legal but SEC-licensed for mining-as-a-service. The Investments and Securities Act (ISA) 2025 classifies digital assets as securities; the Nigeria Taxation Adequacy Act (NTAA) 2025 governs tax. The SEC requires Virtual Asset Service Providers (VASPs) that facilitate trading, custody, or mining services to register; an individual mining at home without providing a service does not fall under SEC jurisdiction. Unlicensed mining-as-a-business is illegal.
Capital requirements: At least ₦500 million (~$335,000) in paid-up capital; total startup costs typically exceed ₦1 billion (~$670,000).
Tax treatment: Mining income taxed up to 30%. NTAA 2025 non-compliance penalties start at ₦10 million in the first month plus ₦1 million per month thereafter.
Licensing status: As of late 2024, only two companies held provisional licenses, with over 30 firms pending — illustrating how a high capital bar can throttle licensing uptake.
Note: Nigeria is covered within the Africa (Emerging) regional aggregate (alongside Kenya — a general VASP regime with no specific mining framework — and Ethiopia).
Sources:
- Chambers and Partners — Blockchain 2025 Nigeria
- IMF — Regulating the Crypto Market in Nigeria
- Cryptoverse Lawyers — Crypto Exchange License Nigeria: ISA 2025 Guide
Ethiopia (Data-Center / Cloud-Services License)
Legal status: Mining is permitted under a "data center and cloud services" classification, even though crypto for transactions is illegal (the Birr is the only legal tender). Licensing runs through Ethiopian Electric Power (EEP) and Ethiopian Investment Holdings (EIH). Mining is tolerated because it generates forex — miners pay for GERD-powered electricity (~$0.032/kWh, among the world's lowest).
Status (corrected): In August 2025, EEP froze all new power permits for crypto/data miners, citing grid capacity, and signalled plans to phase out / reduce mining. Despite the freeze, Hashrate Index ranked Ethiopia the 8th-largest Bitcoin mining jurisdiction at ~2.6% of network hashrate (~27.5 EH/s) in January 2026, up from #10 a year earlier (industry-reported). EIH is reported to be taking 20–30% stakes in mining mega-facilities under a state-backed initiative, and a tariff-increase schedule (30% Dec 2025 / 24% Jul 2026 / 28% Jul 2027) is projected to make ~half of operations unprofitable by mid-2026.
Note: Ethiopia is covered within the Africa (Emerging) regional aggregate.
Sources:
- Mariblock — Ethiopia halts new crypto mining permits
- Afriwise — Cryptomining in Ethiopia: Legal Outlook 2025
- Bitcoin KE — Milestones Behind Ethiopia's Rise as a Bitcoin Mining Haven
1.4 Special Zone / Commercial-Licence Regimes
These jurisdictions create geographically or legally distinct zones where mining enjoys preferential or purpose-built regulatory treatment.
Bhutan — Gelephu Mindfulness City (GMC)
Legal status: Legal — but two-tier: permissive for sovereign mining (via Druk Holding & Investments), with private mining restricted to entities registered in Gelephu Mindfulness City (GMC). The Royal Monetary Authority (RMA) notice of 30 April 2025 established that private crypto mining and exchange activity are exclusively permitted for GMC-registered entities. Crypto is not legal tender, on-ramping via domestic banks is restricted, and ICOs require RMA approval.
How it works: GMC operates under its own legal and regulatory framework, separate from Bhutan's national laws; all legal private crypto mining must be registered and compliant under the GMC framework. Mandatory KYC/AML applies to all mining entities (2019 RMA framework; FATF-aligned).
Advantages: Abundant low-cost hydroelectric power (100% renewable; seasonal — monsoon surplus to mining, winter shutdown); a custom regulatory framework; state backing via DHI; and a December 2025 "Bitcoin Development Pledge" of up to 10,000 BTC (~$1 billion) committed from national reserves to GMC development.
Sources:
- RMA — Regulatory Stance on Crypto Currency
- Basnet — Bhutan's Regulatory Position on Cryptocurrencies (2025)
- CoinDesk — Bhutan Commits Up to 10,000 Bitcoin to Mindfulness City (Dec 2025)
UAE — Free Zones (VARA, ADGM, DIFC)
Legal status: Legal — mining is not a regulated financial service; it is a licensable commercial activity (a business/commercial licence: mainland LLC or free-zone, e.g. cloud-computing/data-centre). Self-miners and B2B hosting typically need no VARA/CMA financial licence; selling mined output commercially may trigger VASP licensing. The UAE operates a multi-regulator model: VARA (Dubai), the federal Capital Markets Authority (CMA) (which replaced the SCA on 1 January 2026), ADGM FSRA, DFSA (DIFC), and CBUAE (stablecoins). Algorithmic and privacy tokens are banned.
FSRA clarification (Q2 2026): ADGM's FSRA confirmed that crypto mining is not a regulated financial service requiring FSRA authorisation, but is a licensable commercial activity via the Registration Authority (subject to operational-resilience, governance, and energy-use expectations).
Tax: Corporate tax of 9% on profits exceeding AED 375,000; free-zone entities may qualify for 0% on qualifying income (with substance requirements). Mining income is subject to 5% VAT.
Sources:
- Charles Russell Speechlys — In-Depth Virtual Currency Regulation: UAE
- Hacken — UAE Crypto Regulation: Licensing, Compliance & Key Insights
- Chambers and Partners — Blockchain 2025 UAE
United States — Kentucky (Tax Incentive Zone)
Legal status: No state ban; Kentucky operates a tax-incentive regime to attract commercial mining.
Legal basis: House Bill 230 and Senate Bill 255, signed by Governor Beshear on 25 March 2021, effective 1 July 2021.
Incentives:
- Exemption from Kentucky's 6% sales/use tax on electricity used in commercial cryptocurrency mining
- Exemption from the 3% local utilities gross receipts license tax
- Sales tax exemption of up to 100% on tangible personal property (mining equipment) where minimum capital investment is $1,000,000
- Qualifying threshold: a facility must consume at least 200,000 kWh/month
Sources:
- Kentucky Legislature — Chapter 122 (HB 230)
- GovTech — Kentucky Bill Offers Incentives for Cryptocurrency Mining
- Avalara — Kentucky adopts sales tax incentives for cryptocurrency mining
1.5 State-Directed / Sovereign Mining
Bhutan — Druk Holding & Investments (DHI)
Legal status: State-operated sovereign mining. Druk Holding & Investments (DHI) — the commercial and investment arm of the Royal Government of Bhutan — is the primary state miner, operating alongside the GMC regime for private participants (the two-tier system above). There is no published legislation establishing a formal state monopoly; DHI's primacy is de facto.
Scale: Bhutan has mined over 13,000 BTC since 2019 (industry/operator-reported), with ~600 MW total mining capacity using 100% renewable hydropower (facilities at Gedu and Jigmeling/Sarpang). Bitdeer Technologies (NASDAQ: BTDR) is the primary mining partner.
Recent treasury activity: Industry tracking (Arkham/CoinDesk) indicates Bhutan sold down a large share of its accumulated stack over 2025–2026 (e.g., ~70% of its October-2024 holdings sold over 18 months; no mining inflow >$100K in over a year as of April 2026, suggesting mining may be paused), with DHI's CEO disputing parts of the sale narrative. This reflects a shift from accumulation toward treasury management.
Sources:
- ORF Online — Bhutan's crypto mining bets: Economic and foreign policy implications
- CoinDesk — Bhutan Bitcoin Holdings / DHI Treasury Coverage
- Crypto for Innovation — Bhutan's Bitcoin Mining Reveals Wider Interest
El Salvador — State Geothermal Mining
Legal status: Legal and historically encouraged; there is no statute banning or licensing mining as an activity. Public-sector mining is, however, constrained by the IMF program. The Comisión Nacional de Activos Digitales (CNAD) regulates digital-asset service providers (DASPs).
Bitcoin legal-tender status (corrected): El Salvador adopted Bitcoin as legal tender in 2021 via the Bitcoin Law (Decreto 57). That legal-tender status was repealed on 29 January 2025 (amendment passed 55–2) as a condition of the IMF Extended Fund Facility (EFF). The IMF EFF condition further requires the public sector to cease BTC accumulation via both purchases AND mining (no general mining ban).
Framework: The state-owned geothermal utility LaGeo (~204 MW; ~95 MW earmarked allocation for the government mining program) powers volcanic-energy mining. The "Lava Pool" joint venture (Volcano Energy / Luxor / Tether) historically structured mining around state geothermal capacity. The government reported mining 474 BTC via geothermal (government-reported, dating to late 2024). Analysts characterise El Salvador as "not a competitive mining market" (~1.1 EH/s, ~$0.20/kWh tariff, no grid surplus).
Tax: Licensed digital-asset (DASP) activity under the LEAD framework benefits from 0% income tax, 0% VAT, and 0% capital-gains tax — governing DASP businesses, not the mining act itself.
Sources:
- CoinTelegraph — El Salvador mines 474 Bitcoin using geothermal volcanic energy
- IMF — El Salvador Country Report 25/58 (EFF)
- Nasdaq — Volcano Energy Builds Road to Geothermal Bitcoin Mining
1.6 Outright Ban / Grid Disconnection
2 of 27 covered jurisdictions impose an outright mining ban: China and Venezuela. Several others impose sub-national or proposed bans without a national prohibition (Canadian provinces; Norway's proposed ban; localized US county bans).
China
Legal status: Fully banned — mining, trading, and ownership are all prohibited (enacted). Enforcement is multi-agency (PBoC, CSRC, NDRC, Ministry of Public Security, State Administration of Foreign Exchange).
Legal instruments:
- 2021 NDRC industrial-restructuring catalogue classifying mining an "eliminated" industry; the 24 September 2021 inter-agency notice declaring crypto an "illegal financial activity."
- 6 February 2026 eight-agency joint notice ("Ban 2.0"), which reaffirmed all crypto business activity illegal and extended controls to OTC trading, offshore yuan-pegged stablecoins, and RWA tokenization.
Enforcement: Electricity / "energy-signature" monitoring, blockchain forensics, and criminal prosecution of cross-border laundering networks. A cross-border USDT laundering case of 1.182 billion yuan ($166M) was unveiled on 28 October 2025.
Hashrate share (corrected): Despite the comprehensive ban, China re-emerged as the third-largest mining hub at an industry-reported ~14% of global Bitcoin hashrate (24 November 2025; Hashrate Index/Luxor ~14%, CryptoQuant 15–20%; methodology-caveated geolocation/pool-IP estimates), with underground operations concentrated in Xinjiang and Sichuan.
PBoC meeting (corrected — Nov 2025): In November 2025, the PBoC together with top financial, judicial, and cybersecurity agencies reaffirmed that all crypto activity (including stablecoins) is illegal, amid renewed crackdown signals — preceding the February 2026 eight-agency notice.
Sources:
- Library of Congress — NDRC Issues Notice Restricting Cryptocurrency Mining
- CoinDesk — China Tightens Crypto Mining Crackdown, Bans Trading
- Reuters via CoinDesk — China re-emerges as third-largest mining hub (Nov 2025)
Venezuela
Legal status: Banned from the national grid (May 2024); the ban remains in force and actively enforced as of May 2026. Off-grid operations were historically exempt. SUNACRIP, the former regulator, collapsed/suspended in March 2023; grid disconnection is administered by the Ministry of People's Power for Electric Energy (MPPEE). The ban is an administrative MPPEE measure — there is no enacted prohibiting statute.
Enforcement: Militarized grid-protection raids are the operative enforcement mode (framed as protecting the national electricity system, not financial-crime prosecution):
- Maracay 2024: 2,300+ Antminer S19j Pro units seized.
- Operación Cazador (18 May 2026): ~4,000 ASIC machines seized (CICPC + military + Ministry of Electric Energy); the facility drew 8–10 MW.
Disconnecting mining reportedly recovered ~500 MW in critical regions (Carabobo, Aragua; government-reported) amid national demand peaking ~15,579 MW (a 9-year high) in May 2026.
Note: The absence of a publicly verifiable formal legal instrument is notable — Venezuela's ban was implemented through administrative/executive action rather than formal legislation.
Sources:
- CoinTelegraph — Venezuela bans crypto mining to protect power grid
- TheMinerMag — Venezuela Cracks Down on Bitcoin Miners Amid Grid Concerns
- Charltonsquantum — Venezuela Moves to Ban Cryptocurrency Mining
Canada (Provincial Moratoria / De Facto Bans)
Legal status: Legal at the federal level (no federal mining ban; CRA handles tax). Provincial variation governs grid access, with a clearly restrictive trend:
| Province | Instrument | Status |
|---|---|---|
| British Columbia | BC Energy Statutes Amendment Act | Permanently banning new grid connections for crypto mining (announced 20 Oct 2025) |
| Quebec | Régie de l'énergie; Rate CB | Capacity allocation suspended since Jan 2023; Rate CB rose to 18.078¢/kWh (1 Apr 2026) for blockchain use at 50 kW+; proposed avg ~19.5¢/kWh pending Régie approval (H2 2026) |
| Alberta | Deregulated open market | Most open; commercial market access |
| Ontario | — | De facto moratorium (NOT VERIFIED) |
Sources:
- McCarthy Tétrault — BC to Regulate Crypto-Mining Electricity Use
- Province of British Columbia — Cryptocurrency Mining Policy Engagement
- CoinTelegraph — Crypto miners face energy refusal in Canadian provinces
United States — New York State (Expired PoW Moratorium)
Legal status: No federal ban; New York imposed a time-limited PoW moratorium that has since expired.
Legal basis: Chapter 628 of the Laws of 2022, signed 23 November 2022, imposed a two-year moratorium (22 Nov 2022 – 22 Nov 2024) on permits for proof-of-work mining using behind-the-meter electricity from carbon-based fuels. The moratorium expired in November 2024 without a Generic Environmental Impact Statement having been completed. A separate NY PoW mining excise tax (S.8518/S.4728A) has been proposed but not enacted.
Sources:
- NY State Senate — Bill S6486D
- Bitcoin Policy Institute — NY Cryptocurrency Mining: From Moratorium to Task Force
- Earthjustice — Cryptomining Moratorium Expires
1.7 Other Stances (Ambiguous, Punitive, and Mixed)
Not every covered jurisdiction maps cleanly onto a licensing model. Three positions warrant separate treatment.
Saudi Arabia — Ambiguous / Gray Zone
Legal status: Ambiguous / legal gray zone — mining is neither explicitly banned nor licensed. The only binding instrument (a 2018 standing-committee warning, headed by the Capital Market Authority with SAMA a member) addresses trading/dealing, not the computational act of mining. There is no mining-specific law, licence, or prohibition, and no positive licensing pathway. A broader VASP framework is reportedly under development (NOT VERIFIED, not enacted as of June 2026). Recent activity is purely commercial (e.g., WhiteBIT × Durrah AlFodah Holding MoU; Qareeb × Pantheon ~50 MW GCC colocation) and does not change the legal status.
India — Punitive-but-Legal
Legal status: Legal but unregulated and heavily taxed. No law prohibits mining and there is no dedicated mining legislation, licensing regime, mining-specific AML rule, or power-usage cap. Mined tokens are Virtual Digital Assets (VDAs) taxed at a 30% flat rate (Section 115BBH, now Sec 194 of the Income-tax Act, 2025) plus 4% cess, with the cost of acquisition deemed zero (no electricity/hardware deduction, no loss offset), plus a 1% TDS — a regime that discourages mining about as effectively as a ban, without the clarity of one. The Union Budget 2026-27 (1 Feb 2026) retained the 30% VDA tax and 1% TDS unchanged.
Southeast Asia — Mixed Regional Landscape
Legal status: Varies by country. Thailand is legal/unregulated-specific (connecting to subsidized grids is illegal); Vietnam is largely unaddressed (NOT VERIFIED); the Philippines is legal under general business law but under an indefinite BSP VASP-licensing moratorium (from 1 Sep 2025); Indonesia is legal and taxed (with a 2019 ICO ban and crypto-payment ban); Malaysia is legal as an activity with enforcement focused on electricity theft (Electricity Supply Act 1990; ~RM700M/year losses reported); and South Korea has no specific mining ban. There is mostly no outright mining ban across the region — the binding constraints are electricity-theft enforcement and VASP-licensing freezes, not mining prohibitions.
Nordic Countries — No Ban, Tax/Grid Pressure
Legal status: Legal across Sweden, Norway, and Iceland — with no enacted bans, but mounting pressure. Sweden is increasingly hostile (it removed the data-centre electricity-tax break, raising the tax from SEK 0.006 to SEK 0.36/kWh in July 2023, and crypto mining is not a VAT-deductible activity — Skatteverket demanded ~SEK 990M in VAT adjustments from data-centre firms concealing mining). Norway operates the Nkom data-centre registry and has a proposed-but-unenacted ban (the Storting asked for a bill on 12 March 2026). Iceland is grid-constrained — Landsvirkjun commercially refuses/curtails new energy-intensive load — a de facto cap rather than a statutory ban.
2. LICENSING DECISION FRAMEWORK
For a country designing a crypto mining licensing regime from scratch, the following decision points are critical. Each maps to real-world examples among the 27 covered jurisdictions, with documented outcomes.
Decision 1: What is the primary policy objective?
| Objective | Approach | Country Example | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue generation / forex | License + forex payment for power | Ethiopia (Africa Emerging) | Forex-driven tolerance, but EEP froze new permits (Aug 2025); ~1/3 grid concerns; phasing down |
| Grid reliability | Registration + load visibility | Texas (PUCT), Russia (FTS) | Provides operator visibility into large flexible loads; Russia adds IP-address data (2026) |
| Energy sovereignty | Ban/restrict grid-connected mining | British Columbia, Norway (proposed) | Preserves grid capacity but displaces mining to other jurisdictions |
| Industrial development | Tax incentives + special zones | Kentucky, Georgia, Uzbekistan (Besqala) | Attracts investment; Uzbekistan's Besqala offers a 10-year tax holiday |
| Financial system integrity | Full licensing via securities regulator | Nigeria (SEC) | High barrier (₦500M+ capital); only 2 provisional licenses issued — may drive operations underground |
| Climate/environment | Moratorium / tax pressure | New York (expired), Sweden | NY paused fossil-fuel mining (expired Nov 2024); Sweden's tax drove a majority of surveyed miners to plan relocation |
| Sovereign accumulation | State-directed mining | Bhutan (DHI), El Salvador | Sovereign treasuries; both now constrained (Bhutan shifting to treasury management; El Salvador by IMF EFF) |
Decision 2: What threshold triggers regulation?
| Threshold Type | Level | Country | Rationale |
|---|---|---|---|
| Power consumption (absolute) | >75 MW + ≥10% interruptible | Texas | Grid reliability — facilities this size can impact system stability |
| Power consumption (monthly) | >6,000 kWh/month | Russia | Distinguishes hobby from commercial mining |
| Power consumption (monthly) | >200,000 kWh/month | Kentucky (for incentives) | Ensures incentives flow to commercial operations |
| Activity type | PoW mining using fossil fuels | New York (expired) | Environmental/climate policy |
| Entity type | Legal entities only | Uzbekistan | Individuals prohibited from mining entirely |
| Service type | Mining-as-a-service only | Germany, Singapore, UK, UAE, Nigeria | Pure mining unregulated; service provision triggers regulation |
| Localisation | Domestic-registered persons/entities only | Kazakhstan, Russia | National control over who may mine |
| Zone | Only within designated zone | Bhutan (GMC), Uzbekistan (Besqala) | Geographic containment of risk |
| None (all mining banned) | All operations | China, Venezuela (grid) | Prohibition |
Decision 3: Registration or full licensing?
| Feature | Registration | Full License |
|---|---|---|
| Approval process | Notification-based; automatic unless rejected | Substantive review; discretionary approval |
| Time to market | Days to weeks | Months to years |
| Cost to operator | Low (filing fees) | High (capital requirements, legal costs) |
| Barrier to entry | Low | High |
| Government resources needed | Minimal | Significant (staff, expertise) |
| Information asymmetry | Reduces it (reporting) | Eliminates it (full oversight) |
| Risk of driving activity underground | Low | Higher (if requirements too burdensome) |
| Best for | Grid visibility, energy planning, tax base | Financial consumer protection, AML/CFT |
| Example | Texas, Norway, Russia (small miners), Paraguay | Kazakhstan, Nigeria, Uzbekistan |
Key lesson from Nigeria: Setting capital requirements too high (₦500M+) resulted in only 2 licenses issued out of 30+ applicants — regulatory design that may not match market reality.
Key lesson from Russia: Despite a clear legal framework, only ~30% compliance was achieved by mid-2025 (leaving ~70%, an estimated 140,000–200,000 farms, unregistered) — enforcement capacity is as important as legal design.
Decision 4: How to address energy and environment?
| Approach | Instrument | Country | Documented Effect |
|---|---|---|---|
| Punitive tariff | Double tariff for grid mining | Uzbekistan | Pushes miners toward renewable self-generation |
| Discriminatory tariff | Above-market rate for miners | Quebec (Rate CB 18.078¢/kWh) | Deters new mining investment |
| Per-kWh levy | Digital-mining surcharge | Kazakhstan (2 tenge/kWh) | Predictable revenue; renewables get 1 tenge/kWh |
| Renewable mandate | Solar/renewable mining | Uzbekistan | Limits grid impact; increases capex for miners |
| Seasonal shutdown | Operations suspended during peak demand | Russia (Siberian seasonal bans), Bhutan (winter) | Protects grid during stress periods |
| Construction/permit freeze | No new mining data centers / power permits | Norway (proposed), Ethiopia (Aug 2025) | Caps total mining energy demand |
| Fossil fuel ban | No new permits for carbon-fuelled mining | New York (expired) | Targeted environmental impact specifically |
| Tax normalisation | Remove data-centre electricity-tax break | Sweden | Pressured miners to relocate |
Decision 5: How to handle the revenue/value chain?
| Approach | Country | Mechanism |
|---|---|---|
| No forced sale, tax only | Germany, Georgia, Russia, South Africa | Standard income/corporate tax; no mandatory sale |
| Mandatory sale on licensed exchange (repealed) | Kazakhstan | Former 50–75% quota — now repealed (Law No. 231-VIII, Nov 2025) |
| Proceeds to domestic bank accounts | Uzbekistan | Mining proceeds credited to Uzbek bank accounts; sold via licensed exchanges |
| Forex payment for electricity | Ethiopia | Mining tolerated because miners pay for power in foreign currency |
| Revenue share / state geothermal | El Salvador | State geothermal (LaGeo) program; public-sector accumulation now IMF-constrained |
| Sovereign accumulation → treasury management | Bhutan | DHI accumulated >13,000 BTC; now selling down toward treasury management |
3. RECOMMENDED LICENSING TIERS
Based on the global evidence documented above, the following three-tier framework is proposed for a country designing a new crypto mining regulatory regime. Each tier's thresholds are calibrated to real-world precedents.
Tier 0: Exempt / Notification-Only (Hobby/Micro Mining)
Threshold: Monthly electricity consumption below 6,000 kWh (based on Russia's Law No. 221-FZ threshold) AND operating as a natural person (not a legal entity).
Rationale: At 6,000 kWh/month, an operation runs roughly 6–8 modern ASIC miners — negligible grid impact and minimal financial-system risk. Russia's experience demonstrates this threshold effectively separates hobby miners from commercial operations.
Requirements:
- No registration or license required
- Standard personal income tax obligations on mining proceeds apply
- Compliance with local building codes, noise, and electrical safety regulations
- No reporting to energy authority
Precedent countries: Germany, Georgia, Singapore, Australia, United Kingdom, Russia (below threshold)
Tier 1: Registration (Small-to-Medium Commercial Operations)
Threshold: Monthly electricity consumption 6,000 kWh – 10 MW capacity OR organized as a legal entity conducting mining activity.
Rationale: The lower bound (6,000 kWh/month) matches Russia's threshold; the upper bound of 10 MW captures operations below which system-level grid effects are unlikely, while ensuring regulatory visibility. Kentucky's incentive threshold (200,000 kWh/month) falls within this band as a "clearly commercial" marker.
Requirements:
| Requirement | Detail | Precedent |
|---|---|---|
| Registration | Online registration with energy regulator or designated authority within 30 days of commencement | Russia (FTS), Norway (Nkom), Paraguay (MIC) |
| Information disclosed | Location, ownership, business structure, equipment specifications, electricity source and consumption (incl. IP-address data) | Texas (PUCT), Russia (Decree 556) |
| Annual reporting | Annual report on electricity consumption, hash rate, and cryptocurrency produced | Texas, Russia |
| Energy metering | Dedicated certified meter for mining operations | Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan |
| Tax compliance | Business income tax on mining revenue | All jurisdictions |
| Safety compliance | Electrical safety, fire code, noise standards | Universal |
| Processing time | Automatic approval unless objection within 15 business days | Adapted from Texas model |
Penalties for non-registration (for reference):
- Texas: $25,000 per violation per day
- Norway: proposed infringement fee
- Russia (proposed): fines up to 1.5M rubles + up to 2 years forced labour
Estimated regulatory cost: Low. Requires a digital registry, basic review staff, and coordination with the energy authority.
Tier 2: Full License (Large-Scale / Grid-Significant Operations)
Threshold: Electricity capacity above 10 MW OR operating a mining pool, mining-as-a-service business, or other activity constituting a financial service.
Rationale: The 10 MW threshold captures operations that can meaningfully affect local grid conditions. Texas's 75 MW threshold was designed for statewide ERCOT impact, but most national grids are smaller and more vulnerable; 10 MW is more appropriate for emerging markets. Operations above this level warrant proactive review, capital adequacy checks, and ongoing supervision.
Requirements:
| Requirement | Detail | Precedent |
|---|---|---|
| License application | Formal application to competent authority | Kazakhstan (national licence), Uzbekistan (NAPP), Nigeria (SEC) |
| Capital adequacy | Minimum paid-up capital appropriate to jurisdiction (Nigeria's ₦500M is illustrative but widely considered too high) | Nigeria, Uzbekistan (Besqala 5,000 BCU) |
| Environmental assessment | Energy source disclosure; renewable energy plan or offset requirement | Uzbekistan (renewable mandate), New York (GEIS concept) |
| Grid impact study | Coordination with grid operator on load profile, interruptibility, and curtailment obligations | Texas (ERCOT coordination) |
| AML/KYC | If operating a pool or MaaS, full AML/CFT compliance per FATF standards | Bhutan (RMA/GMC), Nigeria (ISA 2025), Uzbekistan (NAPP) |
| Reporting | Production data, electricity consumption, cryptocurrency disposition | Kazakhstan, Russia |
| License duration | 3 years with renewal | Kazakhstan |
| Processing time | Target 90 days | — |
| Curtailment obligation | Must participate in demand response/curtailment during grid emergencies | Texas (interruptible load), Kazakhstan |
| Data center standards | Physical security, cybersecurity, and operational resilience standards | Norway (data-centre regime), UAE (ADGM/FSRA) |
Summary of Proposed Tiers
| Tier 0: Exempt | Tier 1: Registration | Tier 2: Full License | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Threshold | <6,000 kWh/month, natural person | 6,000 kWh/month – 10 MW; OR legal entity mining | >10 MW; OR mining-as-a-service / pool operator |
| Regulatory burden | None (standard tax only) | Low (online registration, annual reporting) | High (application, capital, environmental, AML) |
| Approval | Automatic | Notification-based (auto-approve) | Discretionary |
| Processing time | N/A | 15 business days | 90 days (target) |
| Primary purpose | Avoid over-regulation of hobby activity | Grid visibility, tax base, data collection | Financial system integrity, grid stability, environmental |
| Penalty model | Standard tax penalties | Per-day fines or turnover-based | License revocation, criminal penalties for unlicensed operation |
| Precedent | Germany, Georgia, Russia (<6,000 kWh) | Texas, Norway, Russia (registered), Paraguay | Kazakhstan, Nigeria, Uzbekistan |
Critical Implementation Notes
-
Enforcement capacity matters more than legal design. Russia's ~30% compliance rate by mid-2025 (leaving an estimated ~70% / 140,000–200,000 farms unregistered) demonstrates that even well-designed registration systems require enforcement infrastructure. Regulators should budget for verification and compliance resources.
-
Capital requirements must be calibrated to the local market. Nigeria's ₦500M (~$335,000) requirement resulted in only 2 licenses issued. For developing economies, excessively high capital requirements drive mining underground rather than into compliance.
-
Energy pricing is the most effective regulatory lever. Uzbekistan's double tariff, Quebec's punitive Rate CB, and Kazakhstan's per-kWh digital-mining fee all demonstrate that electricity pricing is a more effective tool than bans for managing mining activity. Bans (China, Venezuela) tend to displace activity rather than eliminate it — note China still hosts an industry-reported ~14% of global hashrate underground. See Energy & Environmental Regulation for detailed pricing analysis.
-
Environmental requirements should be proportionate. New York's moratorium approach (halting activity pending a GEIS that was never completed before the moratorium expired in November 2024) demonstrates the risk of environmental-review mechanisms that lack practical delivery timelines. A self-executing model — such as Uzbekistan's renewable-energy mandate — does not depend on government study capacity.
-
Forced sale requirements create market distortions. Kazakhstan repealed its 50–75% mandatory exchange-sale quota (Law No. 231-VIII, Nov 2025) after the restrictive classification proved counterproductive — a clear signal that mandatory-sale mechanisms are difficult to sustain.
-
Special zones can concentrate expertise and manage risk. Bhutan's GMC model, Uzbekistan's Besqala Mining Valley, and the UAE free-zone approach allow jurisdictions to experiment with mining regulation in a contained environment before scaling nationally. See the What Works & What Doesn't analysis for outcomes assessment.
-
Legal-tender status and sovereign mining can be reversed by external constraints. El Salvador repealed Bitcoin's legal-tender status on 29 January 2025 and agreed to halt public-sector BTC accumulation (via purchases and mining) under its IMF EFF — and Bhutan has shifted from sovereign accumulation toward treasury management. Sovereign mining programs are exposed to fiscal and multilateral pressures.
Verification Gaps and Limitations
The following claims could not be independently verified from primary legal sources and should be confirmed before inclusion in a final guidance document:
- Venezuela: No specific Gaceta Oficial decree number was found for the 2024 grid-mining ban; it appears to have been implemented through administrative/executive (MPPEE) action rather than formal legislation.
- Bhutan / DHI: Recent treasury-activity figures (holdings, sell-downs, the inference that mining may be paused) are industry-reported (Arkham/CoinDesk), with DHI's CEO disputing parts of the sale narrative; not independently confirmed against primary records.
- Uzbekistan: The Besqala minimum charter capital (5,000 BCU, ~$170,800) governs zone residency; a general minimum-capital requirement outside the zone is NOT VERIFIED.
- Russia: The ~196,900 active-farm count (FTS AI energy-monitoring) and the ~30% registration / ~70% unregistered split are industry/state-reported and not independently audited; the ~2.1–2.2 GW 2026 capacity figure is NOT INDEPENDENTLY VERIFIED.
- China hashrate share: The ~14% global-hashrate figure is industry-reported (Hashrate Index/Luxor ~14%, CryptoQuant 15–20%) from methodology-caveated geolocation/pool-IP estimates, not a primary CBECI/CCAF series.
- Ethiopia: The ~2.6% global-hashrate / ~27.5 EH/s ranking (Hashrate Index, Jan 2026) is an industry-reported estimate; the prior "~33% of national power" consumption claim was removed as unverifiable against a primary source.
- Canada (Ontario): The reported Ontario de facto moratorium is NOT VERIFIED.
- Saudi Arabia: Secondary claims of mining-specific tax rates and a ~4% hashrate share lack a primary/methodology-bearing source and are treated as unverified; no mining-specific licence or prohibition exists.
- Kazakhstan / AIFC fees: Specific licensing fees and application costs were not identified in available sources.
This analysis was compiled from publicly available legal and regulatory sources and mirrors the canonical per-jurisdiction fact matrix as of 4 June 2026. It covers all 27 jurisdictions in this domain, including the regional aggregates Southeast Asia, Nordic Countries, and Africa (Emerging). Hashrate and energy figures are flagged as industry-reported with their methodology source. Where primary legal texts were not accessible in English, secondary legal analysis from reputable law firms and international organizations was used. Regulators are advised to verify primary legal texts in the original language before relying on this analysis for policy design.