regdex / methodology
Methodology
The Regdex brings together regulatory standards developed by expert working groups from around the world. Its methodology is designed to make those standards transparent, testable, and capable of improvement over time. Anyone can examine the work, understand how it was developed, and contribute to it.
HOW THE STANDARDS ARE MADE
The framework is organized around five pillars, each addressing a distinct part of the fintech regulatory environment. Within each pillar, detailed standards translate broad regulatory objectives into concrete questions that can be examined, tested, and improved.
Section 1
Five dimensions of the regulatory environment
No single feature determines whether a regulatory framework works well for financial innovation. A system may have clear rules but poor access, strong innovation programs but weak consumer safeguards, or sophisticated requirements that are difficult to navigate in practice. The methodology therefore separates the regulatory environment into five distinct pillars, allowing each dimension to be examined on its own terms.
Pillar 01
This pillar asks whether the rules governing fintech are findable, understandable, and complete enough to cover common activities and risks. Its standards focus on whether a firm can determine which requirements apply, what permissions it needs, and how to comply using publicly available information. The concern is the clarity and coherence of the rulebook — not whether it is permissive or restrictive.
Section 2
From a broad regulatory question to something that can be examined and debated
Pillar
One broad question about the regulatory environment.
Sub-dimension
A group of related indicators within a pillar, each carrying a weight.
Indicator
One specific, examinable question, with criteria, evidence and edge cases attached.
Indicator
One specific, examinable question, with criteria, evidence and edge cases attached
INDICATOR-1 · THE UNIT THAT IS TESTED AND CONTRIBUTED TO
Each indicator explains what it measures, how it should be interpreted, the criteria used to distinguish different levels of development, and the public evidence relevant to those criteria. Guidance on recurring edge cases helps ensure that the same question can be approached consistently rather than relying on an assessor's general impression.
Section 3
How the standards were developed and tested
The standards were not written as abstract principles and then treated as finished. The working groups developed them iteratively: defining the questions that mattered, translating those questions into usable standards, testing whether those standards could be applied consistently, and refining them where ambiguity or unintended results emerged.
The objective is to distinguish a standard that merely sounds sensible from one that can actually be used. Testing is therefore part of the methodology itself: draft standards can be applied against real regulatory systems to determine whether the underlying questions, evidence requirements, and distinctions are sufficiently clear.
Select a stage, or watch the loop
Section 4
Three commitments that make the standards credible
Every standard in the framework is held to the same three commitments. They are what allow a standard written by one working group to be checked, applied, and challenged by someone who was not in the room.
GROUNDED
Each standard traces back to recognized best practice and to a regulatory principle that can be stated plainly and defended on its merits. A standard that cannot explain why it asks what it asks does not belong in the framework.
VERIFIABLE
Anyone applying a standard should be able to point to observable, identifiable facts — a published rule, a licensing pathway, a redress channel — and show how those facts satisfy or fall short of the principle. Impressions and reputation do not count as evidence.
SYSTEM NEUTRAL
The framework does not assume that a detailed rules-based regime is superior to a principles- or outcomes-based one, or the reverse. Different regulatory architectures can satisfy the same standard in different ways, and the standards describe each route where more than one exists.
A contribution can be as focused as changing a sentence or as ambitious as proposing an entirely new pillar.
ScopeA line01.
EDIT EXISTING TEXT
Improve or challenge language that is already in the methodology. Select a paragraph or individual line and propose replacement wording, with additions and deletions displayed as a redline so others can see exactly what you are suggesting.
SUGGEST AN EDIT
ScopeA section02.
ADD WITHIN AN EXISTING PILLAR
Identify something an existing pillar does not yet address. Propose new language within that pillar, including an entirely new section or category, and explain where it belongs and what gap it would fill.
ADD A SECTION
ScopeA pillar03.
EXPAND THE FRAMEWORK
Introduce an area of analysis that the methodology does not yet cover. Describe what the proposed pillar would examine, why it is needed, and how it would fit alongside the existing framework.
PROPOSE A NEW PILLAR