Structuring a digital-asset business is a sequence of decisions that lock each other in. Where the entity sits determines what it can be licensed for; what it can be licensed for determines which banks and exchanges will work with it; and those relationships determine which markets are actually reachable.
We work that sequence deliberately. Business model first — what you do, for whom, and how value accrues — then entity, token and jurisdiction design tested against the regimes in the markets you intend to serve, then the operational rails: banking, custody and payment connectivity.
This is the foundational engagement. It is the work that determines whether everything downstream is straightforward or permanently uphill.
- You are launching a digital-asset business and have not settled the entity, token or jurisdiction.
- Your current structure has grown organically and no longer supports the markets you need.
- A bank, exchange or institutional partner has asked questions your structure cannot yet answer.
- You are choosing between two jurisdictions and need the consequences made concrete.
Model before map
The right jurisdiction follows from what the business actually does — custody, issuance, intermediation or software — and not from where the most projects incorporated last year.
One decision, many consequences
Entity, token and jurisdiction choices are made together, because a token design that only works in one regime effectively fixes the entity and the jurisdiction as well.
Built for the banks, not just the regulator
A structure the regulator accepts but no bank will onboard is not a structure. The counterparty test runs alongside the regulatory one throughout.
- Business-model and activity mapping against regulatory regimes per market
- Entity, ownership and intercompany architecture
- Token design review where an instrument is involved
- Jurisdiction comparison against licensing, banking, tax and substance
- Custody and key-management design with its legal basis
- Sequenced roadmap covering licensing, banking and launch
- 01
Map the activity
What you do at each step — hold, transmit, exchange, issue, advise — because each activity carries its own regulatory character, in each market.
- 02
Choose the structure
Entity, ownership and token architecture designed together and tested against the target regimes rather than the other way round.
- 03
Design the perimeter
Which activities you carry in-house, which sit with licensed partners and which you avoid altogether — the split that defines your regulatory footprint.
- 04
Set the rails
Custody, banking and payment connectivity planned as part of the structure, with the partner requirements known before you commit.
- 05
Sequence and hand over
A written roadmap of what happens in what order, with the licensing and operational workstreams staged against it.
Structure and jurisdiction read
A written assessment of the model, the structural options and the trade-offs between the candidate jurisdictions.
Full structuring programme
Entity, token, custody and perimeter design implemented, with the licensing and banking workstreams staged behind it.
Structure remediation
Re-engineering an operating structure that has outgrown, or is exposed by, its original design.
- Projects seeking confirmation of a structure already committed to, rather than design input.
- Businesses unwilling to separate the regulated activity from the software business where that separation is what makes the model workable.
There is no best jurisdiction, only a best fit for a specific activity in specific markets. Switzerland, Singapore, Estonia, Lithuania, Gibraltar, the UAE and several offshore centres each suit different models. The selection has to weigh licensing, banking access, substance cost, tax and the markets you need — which is why we start from the model.
Frequently several: a holding company, an operating entity, often a licensed entity and sometimes a foundation or trust for protocol or treasury functions. The point of splitting is to contain what a single regulatory or legal event can reach. Each layer costs money, so the split has to be justified.
Profoundly. If the token is a security in a market, the entity, the offering mechanics and the disclosure all follow from that. If it is a payment instrument, the licensing does. Designing the token without the structural consequences in view is how projects end up rebuilding everything after the launch.
Yes, and we often do. We usually lead the commercial and structuring workstream while coordinating local counsel, auditors and tax advisers, and we are happy to work with counsel you already have where the relationship is productive.