Experimentation

Evidence for missing indicators

Each record describes a case the indicators above cannot see. It does not affect the score or confidence because one case is not comparable across countries. A gap can become an indicator when a comparable series covers at least two countries.

• 🇬🇧United Kingdomlinked to Firms through regulatory sandboxesstarted 2016still operating

  The FCA regulatory sandbox

  The United Kingdom's financial regulator built the first regulatory sandbox in 2016, and by the end of 2022 had accepted 168 firms and products to test with real customers under supervision.

  168 firms, firms and products accepted for testing since launch, 2022. Financial Conduct Authority, Innovation Hub market insights, retrieved 2026-08-27.

  How it worked: The regulator wrote a bounded testing regime: a firm without full authorisation can trial a product on real customers for a fixed period, with disclosure requirements and an exit plan, while the regulator watches from inside.

  Limits: The count is the regulator reporting on its own programme, and acceptance is not success: the FCA does not publish how many tests led to authorisation, funding or a product that survived. One hundred and sixty-eight firms over seven years is small next to the sector, so the number evidences that the mechanism runs, not that it moves the industry.

• 🇮🇱Israellinked to Venture dealsstarted 1993delivered and closed

  Yozma, the venture capital catalyst

  Israel put 100 million dollars of public money into ten hybrid venture funds from 1993, with foreign partners and a buy-out option, and by 2002 the country had 131 venture funds with around 10 billion dollars under management.

  10,000,000,000 US dollars, capital under management by israeli venture funds, 2002. 100,000,000 US dollars, government capital that started yozma, 1993. OECD, Venture Capital Policies in Israel, STI working paper 2003/3, retrieved 2026-08-27.

  How it worked: The state capitalised new private funds rather than picking companies, required each fund to bring a foreign venture firm as partner, and sold the government's stake cheaply to the private partners once a fund worked, so the subsidy was the upside, and it expired by design.

  Limits: Attribution is the weak joint: the ten funds were one cause among several, alongside a million-person skilled immigration wave, military technology spillovers and a US stock market that wanted Israeli listings, and the OECD paper credits Yozma as catalyst rather than cause. The 10 billion figure is capital under management, not investment made or returns earned, and roughly 70 percent of it was foreign money. The programme was deliberately closed once private capital led, which is why the status is concluded.

• 🇰🇷South Korealinked to Firms through regulatory sandboxesstarted 2019still operating

  Korean regulatory-sandbox system across eight sectors

  South Korea expanded its regulatory-sandbox system from ICT and industrial-convergence fields in January 2019 to eight sectoral regimes by 2024, adding finance, regulatory-free zones, smart cities, R&D zones, mobility and circular economy testing.

  8 regimes, sectoral regulatory-sandbox regimes operating, 2024-01. Government of the Republic of Korea, Regulatory Sandbox portal, retrieved 2026-08-31.

  How it worked: South Korea created a common regulatory-sandbox architecture with temporary permits, demonstration exemptions and rapid regulatory confirmation, then added sector-specific tracks and dedicated support bodies so smaller firms could test products without negotiating every rule from scratch.

  Limits: The regime count shows institutional breadth, not the number of firms approved, experiments completed, commercial products launched, safety outcomes or permanent rule changes. The government portal describes the system's design and expansion but does not independently evaluate whether each sectoral track is active at the same intensity or produces net social benefit.

• 🇸🇬Singaporelinked to Firms through regulatory sandboxesstarted 2016still operating

  MAS FinTech Regulatory Sandbox variants

  Singapore's Monetary Authority operates three FinTech Regulatory Sandbox variants—Sandbox, Sandbox Express and Sandbox Plus—giving firms distinct routes to test regulated products with real customers under defined safeguards.

  3 sandbox variants, mas fintech regulatory sandbox variants, 2022. Singapore Economic Development Board, overview of the MAS FinTech Regulatory Sandbox, retrieved 2026-08-31.

  How it worked: MAS made experimentation a staged regulatory service: firms needing tailored controls use the original sandbox, lower-risk activities can use Sandbox Express, and promising proposals can receive a streamlined route with support. Each variant keeps a live test bounded while giving the regulator evidence before a full licence.

  Limits: Counting three sandbox routes shows regulatory design and breadth, not applications received, firms graduating to full licences, customer protection, failure rates or the cost of supervision. The EDB account is an official ecosystem description and includes illustrative company cases rather than an independent evaluation of all experiments.

• 🇬🇧United Kingdomlinked to Venture dealsstarted 2018still operating

  British Patient Capital, a public venture-capital catalyst

  The British Business Bank reported that government-owned British Patient Capital had committed £2.287 billion through 80 fund commitments, 10 co-investments and 18 Future Fund deals by 31 March 2024, with an underlying portfolio of 1,350 companies.

  2,287,000,000 GBP, british patient capital commitments since inception, 2024-03-31. 1,350 companies, underlying portfolio companies, 2024-03-31. British Business Bank, British Patient Capital 2023–24 full-year results, retrieved 2026-08-31.

  How it worked: The UK used a public, long-horizon investment platform to anchor private funds, make selected co-investments and keep capital flowing into innovative companies that can be underserved by shorter-horizon finance. A fund-manager network spreads sourcing and specialist judgement beyond the state balance sheet.

  Limits: Commitments, assets and portfolio-company counts are administrative programme totals, not venture capital as a share of GDP, additionality, exits, jobs or causal economic impact. The portfolio includes third-party fund capital and co-investments, and the figures are reported by the government-owned delivery institution rather than independently evaluating what would have happened without it.

• 🇬🇧United Kingdomlinked to University spinoutsstarted 2014still operating

  ICURe, from university research to spinouts

  UK Research and Innovation's ICURe impact report says spinout companies from the programme secured £326 million in investment funding and created more than 1,400 jobs from 2014 onward, after research teams were trained and funded to test markets before deciding whether to spin out.

  326,000,000 GBP, investment secured by icure spinouts, 2024. 1,400 jobs, jobs created by icure spinouts, 2024. UK Research and Innovation, ICURe impact report, retrieved 2026-08-31.

  How it worked: ICURe gives research teams funding, coaching and a disciplined market-discovery period in which they conduct more than 100 customer interviews before a university-backed go/no-go decision. Teams advised to spin out can then apply for follow-on funding, turning technology-transfer work into an investable proposition rather than treating a patent as a company.

  Limits: The impact report's cumulative investment and job figures cover teams supported by ICURe and do not show the full spinout population, survival, profitability, quality of jobs, counterfactual or the programme's independent contribution. They are programme impact estimates, not a national spinout rate or a guarantee that every participating discovery should become a company.

• 🇵🇹Portugallinked to Venture dealsstarted 2012still operating

  Portugal Ventures, a public venture-capital bridge

  Portugal Ventures, the public venture-capital company in the Banco Português de Fomento group, reports €233.2 million invested in 256 new companies since 2012 and €283 million under management.

  233,200,000 EUR invested, invested since launch, 2026-08-31. 256 companies, new companies backed since launch, 2026-08-31. Portugal Ventures, institutional performance figures, retrieved 2026-08-31.

  How it worked: A state-backed investor supplies pre-seed, seed and Series A capital, often alongside private investors, using staged minority investments and portfolio support to bridge companies that are too early for ordinary bank finance.

  Limits: These are company-reported cumulative portfolio figures, not venture-capital investment as a share of GDP, additionality, exits, survival, jobs or a counterfactual. The homepage does not give a full reference-year methodology, and the totals can include private co-investment effects as well as Portugal Ventures' own capital.

• 🇵🇹Portugallinked to Firms through regulatory sandboxesstarted 2022still operating

  Rede Nacional de Test Beds for company experimentation

  ANI's National Innovation Report records 47 recognised Portuguese test beds and €150 million allocated to the national network for developing and testing new products and services at technology-readiness levels 5 to 9.

  47 test beds, recognised test beds, 2024-12-31. 150,000,000 EUR, prr allocation to the test-bed network, 2022-2025. Agência Nacional de Inovação, Relatório Nacional de Inovação 2024, retrieved 2026-09-02.

  How it worked: Portugal funded and recognised shared facilities where SMEs and startups can develop and test near-market products, lowering the cost of moving an experiment from prototype toward demonstration without requiring every firm to build its own laboratory.

  Limits: The count and allocation show a national experimentation infrastructure, not the number of live trials, firms served, products commercialised or regulatory changes that resulted. ANI's report says 47 were recognised at publication but gives no common utilisation definition, and the €150 million is an allocation rather than completed spending or additional private investment.

• 🇵🇹Portugallinked to Firms through regulatory sandboxesstarted 2021still operating

  Zonas Livres Tecnológicas, regulator-supervised experimentation zones

  ANI's National Innovation Report records four Portuguese Zonas Livres Tecnológicas (technological free zones) by the end of 2024, where innovators can test technology-based processes in real or near-real environments under continuous regulator supervision.

  4 zones, technological free zones identified, 2024-12-31. Agência Nacional de Inovação, Relatório Nacional de Inovação 2024, retrieved 2026-09-02.

  How it worked: Portugal created a legal route for regulators and innovators to run controlled tests in defined physical environments, using supervised evidence from those tests to clarify or adapt rules where existing law is uncertain.

  Limits: Four zones are an institutional count, not a measure of trials, firms admitted, time to authorisation or successful regulatory adaptation. ANI's report uses a 31 December 2024 cutoff and does not provide a common utilisation or outcome series, so the record shows that a sandbox channel exists rather than that it is broad or effective.

• 🇧🇷Brazillinked to Firms through regulatory sandboxesstarted 2021delivered and closed

  Banco Central regulatory sandbox, first cycle

  Brazil's central bank opened its regulatory sandbox to applications in February 2021, received 52 projects, admitted seven to test under relaxed rules from 6 December 2021, and ran the cycle for one year with one permitted extension.

  7 projects, projects admitted to the first cycle, 2022. 52 projects, projects that applied to the first cycle, 2021. Banco Central do Brasil, Relatório de Gestão do Sandbox Regulatório, 1º ciclo 2022, retrieved 2026-10-01.

  How it worked: The National Monetary Council and the central bank set a joint sandbox rule in 2020, and a standing committee of seven department heads screened applications by cycle, admitting only projects that needed a specific rule relaxed to be tested.

  Limits: The central bank is reporting on its own programme. Seven admissions out of 52 shows a selective regime, not a broad one: the report records that the bank found 24 projects not innovative enough or not needing any rule relief, judged five outside its remit, and disqualified 16 more. The report covers the first cycle only and says nothing about what the seven tests changed in regulation or which products reached the market. No second cycle appears in the bank's published sandbox documents as of the retrieval date, so the status is concluded on that absence, not on a closing statement. The securities regulator CVM runs a separate sandbox that this record does not count. The source is a PDF and the counts are on page 11.

• 🇮🇳Indialinked to Firms through regulatory sandboxesstarted 2020still operating

  Reserve Bank of India regulatory sandbox

  The Reserve Bank of India ran four themed sandbox cohorts between 2020 and 2024, retail payments, cross-border payments, MSME lending and fraud prevention, admitting 28 entities to test and finding 13 products viable in the three cohorts whose exits it published, and keeps the cohorts open on tap.

  28 entities, entities admitted to the test phase across four cohorts, 2024. 13 products, products found viable in the first, second and fourth cohorts, 2024. Reserve Bank of India, press release on the exit of the fourth Regulatory Sandbox cohort, 18 June 2024, retrieved 2026-10-01.

  How it worked: The RBI published an enabling framework in 2019 and ran the sandbox as themed cohorts, each opened on one policy problem, so the regulator chose the questions and firms competed to answer them; a closed cohort reopens on tap.

  Limits: Both numbers are computed from four RBI press releases, not stated in one: six entities admitted and six viable in the first cohort (13 September 2021), eight and four in the second (19 July 2022), eight admitted to the third (6 June 2022) and six admitted with three viable in the fourth (18 June 2024). The third cohort's exit result was not found, so the viable count leaves it out. The regulator is reporting on its own programme, and viable within the boundary conditions of a test is not adoption: the releases say only that regulated entities may consider the products. Twenty-eight entities over four years is small next to India's payments sector, so the record evidences that a working sandbox exists, not that it shaped the market.

• 🇰🇪Kenyalinked to Firms through regulatory sandboxesstarted 2019still operating

  Capital Markets Authority regulatory sandbox

  Kenya's Capital Markets Authority opened a regulatory sandbox under a 2019 policy guidance note and by January 2024 had let 11 firms exit it after live testing, with new admissions continuing into January 2025.

  11 firms, firms that successfully exited the cma regulatory sandbox, 2024-01. Capital Markets Authority of Kenya, press release 'CMA graduates Sycamore Capital Limited from the Regulatory Sandbox', retrieved 2026-10-01.

  How it worked: The Capital Markets Authority issued a policy guidance note that let fintech firms and incumbents test capital markets products with real customers under relaxed rules, then used each exit as the moment to grant a licence or approval under the Capital Markets Act.

  Limits: This is one regulator's sandbox for capital markets products only. It says nothing about the Central Bank of Kenya, the Communications Authority or any other regulator, so it covers little of the breadth the indicator asks for. The count is the regulator's own, taken from a press release, and the CMA publishes no running register. The 11 exits are cumulative over almost five years, a small number that says nothing about what the exiting products did in the market. 'Successful exit' is the CMA's own description. The figure is from January 2024, and no later official total was found.

• 🇳🇬Nigerialinked to Firms through regulatory sandboxesstarted 2023still operating

  SEC Nigeria Regulatory Incubation Program

  Nigeria's Securities and Exchange Commission opened a one-year Regulatory Incubation sandbox in September 2023 and had admitted seven firms across cohorts 001/23 and 002/24 to test capital-market products, then cleared seven more entities into its Accelerated Regulatory Incubation Programme in July 2026.

  7 firms, firms admitted to the regulatory incubation sandbox across two cohorts, 2024-08-29. 7 entities, entities cleared for the accelerated regulatory incubation programme in one announcement, 2026-07-02. Securities and Exchange Commission, Nigeria, FinPort Registered FinTech Operators directory, retrieved 2026-10-01.

  How it worked: The SEC created a time-limited sandbox with conditional rule waivers and a year-long test period, then added an accelerated track to pull digital-asset firms that were operating informally into supervised testing.

  Limits: The count of seven is ours, read off the directory table as retrieved on 2026-10-01, which carries no publication date and may not be current; the SEC publishes no summary statistic, application count, graduation rate or outcome for any participant. Three of the seven RI firms (Trovotech, Wrapped CBDC, Blockvault) reappear among the seven ARIP admissions of July 2026, so the two metrics overlap and must not be added, and an ARIP Approval-in-Principle is by the SEC's own wording not a final licence. This is one regulator's sandbox in one sector: the Central Bank of Nigeria's separate sandbox framework is not counted, and the record says nothing about whether testing changed any rule.

• 🇦🇪United Arab Emirateslinked to Firms through regulatory sandboxesstarted 2016still operating

  ADGM RegLab, the first fintech sandbox in the region

  The Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Abu Dhabi Global Market opened its RegLab fintech sandbox to applications on 2 November 2016 and by August 2019 had admitted 32 firms from 83 applications from 20 countries, of which two had graduated to the live market.

  32 firms, fintech firms admitted to the adgm reglab since may 2017, 2019-08-25. 2 firms, reglab firms graduated and deployed into the marketplace, 2019-08-25. Abu Dhabi Global Market, Financial Services Regulatory Authority, announcement of the fourth RegLab cohort, retrieved 2026-10-01.

  How it worked: The FSRA wrote a separate, time-limited authorisation category into its rulebook that let fintech firms test with real customers under tailored limits for up to two years, then admitted them in cohorts and moved the successful ones to full licences.

  Limits: The count is the regulator announcing its own programme in a press release, and it dates from August 2019: no later cumulative total was found at an ADGM URL, so the record says nothing about the sandbox's size today. ADGM is a financial free zone in Abu Dhabi with its own regulator, so this is one jurisdiction's sandbox, not a federal regime. The UAE government portal (https://u.ae/en/about-the-uae/digital-uae/regulatory-framework/regulatory-sandboxes-in-the-uae) lists at least five others, including the federal RegLab launched in January 2019 with the Dubai Future Foundation and the DFSA's Innovation Testing Licence, and no official count of firms across all of them exists. Admissions measure regulatory openness, not whether tested products reached customers safely: two graduates out of 32 admitted by 2019 is a thin outcome, and the release does not say how many firms left without a licence.

• 🇮🇩Indonesialinked to Firms through regulatory sandboxesstarted 2018still operating

  OJK regulatory sandbox for financial-sector technological innovation

  Indonesia's Financial Services Authority (OJK), running a regulatory sandbox since 2018 and under POJK 3/2024 since February 2024, had received 26 applications and approved 9 sandbox participants by December 2025, four of which had completed testing and been declared passed.

  9 participants, sandbox participants approved under pojk 3/2024, 2025-12. 26 applications, applications to join the sandbox, 2025-12. Otoritas Jasa Keuangan, press release SP 05/GKPB/OJK/I/2026 (Board of Commissioners monthly meeting, December 2025), retrieved 2026-10-01.

  How it worked: OJK wrote the sandbox into binding regulation, first in 2018 and again in 2024 when it took over crypto and digital-asset supervision, and used graduation from the sandbox to open a registration route for whole business models rather than for one firm.

  Limits: The count of 9 covers only the regime under POJK 3/2024, so it omits every participant tested under the 2018 regulation, and the press release gives no cumulative total since 2018. The regulator reports on its own sandbox. The release's own breakdown names 4 in testing and 4 passed, which sums to 8, so one approved participant is unaccounted for in the text. The cohort is concentrated in digital financial assets and crypto (tokenised gold, tokenised bonds, tokenised property), so breadth across financial activities is narrow. A sandbox count shows that trials run, not that rules changed because of them, although the release does say that business models matching a passed participant may register without a trial. Bank Indonesia runs a separate payments sandbox that is not counted here. The OJK site rejects requests that do not send browser-like headers (a plain curl returned 'Request Rejected'), so automated URL checks may flag it.

• 🇲🇾Malaysialinked to Firms through regulatory sandboxesstarted 2016still operating

  Bank Negara Malaysia Fintech Regulatory Sandbox

  Bank Negara Malaysia has operated a fintech regulatory sandbox since October 2016 and added an accelerated Green Lane for financial institutions in February 2024; as of June 2026 it reported 139 Standard and Green Lane applications submitted to date and five solutions in live testing.

  5 count, solutions currently in testing in the sandbox, 2026-06. 139 count, standard and green lane applications submitted since 2016, 2026-06. Bank Negara Malaysia, Regulatory Sandbox page (Activities in the Sandbox), retrieved 2026-10-01.

  How it worked: Bank Negara Malaysia published a sandbox framework that lets fintech firms test regulated financial services live under tailored conditions, then added a faster Green Lane so incumbents with a strong risk-management record can test with lighter procedures.

  Limits: The page is the regulator reporting on its own programme, as a live dashboard with no archived history, so the figures can change without notice and earlier values cannot be checked. 139 counts applications (the page also calls them applicants), not admissions: BNM publishes no count of participants admitted or graduated, so the share rejected, withdrawn or still in assessment is unknown. The same page's table of solutions currently in the sandbox lists six firms (one dating from June 2022) against the counter's five, so the live-test count is itself inconsistent on the source page. Five live tests after almost ten years is a small number, and the count says nothing about whether tested products reached the market or led to rule changes. It covers one regulator's sandbox; other Malaysian regulators' sandboxes are not counted here.

• 🇹🇭Thailandlinked to Firms through regulatory sandboxesstarted 2016still operating

  Bank of Thailand regulatory sandbox

  The Bank of Thailand, which opened a fintech regulatory sandbox in late 2016, listed 10 sandbox project tracks as of April 2026, whose participant counts sum to 90, from QR payment (14) and biometrics (19) to letters of guarantee (18), the National Digital ID (12) and programmable payment.

  10 sandbox project tracks, project tracks listed under the bank of thailand regulatory sandbox, 2026-04. 90 participants, participants summed across the listed sandbox project tracks, 2026-04. Bank of Thailand, Regulatory Sandbox page, retrieved 2026-10-01.

  How it worked: The Bank of Thailand let banks, fintechs and technology providers test payment, identity and lending services under limited scope and temporary relief, then wrote what worked into rules.

  Limits: The count is the regulator's own listing on a web page rendered from its CMS, not an audited statistic, and the page does not say whether the participants are live today or cumulative since each track opened: the linked P2P list includes firms that exited or discontinued (one discontinued in 2022, one in 2023), so 90 is likely cumulative, not live. The total of 90 is computed by summing the table. A track is the Bank's own grouping, so 10 tracks is not comparable to a count of sandbox regimes elsewhere. The figures show breadth of testing, not how many tests became licensed products, what was learned, or whether consumers were protected; the started year rests on a Bank of Thailand research note, not the 2016 guideline itself. Other Thai regulators' sandboxes are not counted here.

• 🇪🇸Spainlinked to Firms through regulatory sandboxesstarted 2021operating below its peak

  Sandbox financiero (Ley 7/2020), and the fall in applications

  Spain's Treasury ran a national financial regulatory sandbox under Law 7/2020 from 2021. Its first cohort drew 66 applications, 12 of which entered testing. By 2025 demand had fallen to two applications across the ninth and tenth cohorts, one of which received a favourable assessment, and the Government approved a draft law (Anteproyecto, 17 December 2024) that replaces closed cohorts with year-round intake and cuts pre-assessment to 45 working days.

  2 applications, applications received in the 9th and 10th cohorts, 2025. 66 applications, applications received in the first cohort (peak), 2021. Secretaría General del Tesoro y Financiación Internacional (Ministry of Economy), Informe bienal del Sandbox financiero 2024-2025, retrieved 2026-10-01.

  How it worked: The Treasury built a cohort-based sandbox in which the Bank of Spain, the securities regulator CNMV and the insurance supervisor DGSFP assessed and monitored tests under one statute, then fed the conclusions back into legislation. Demand collapsed once the first cohort's backlog cleared, and the Government answered with a draft law for year-round intake and a shorter pre-assessment.

  Limits: Applications measure demand for the regime. They do not measure the regime's regulatory value, and the Treasury reports its own programme. The first cohort's surge was partly pent-up demand from the two-year legislative delay before Law 7/2020, so 66 is an unusual peak and not a steady state. Some of the later fall may reflect substitutes rather than lost capability: the EU DLT Pilot Regime, MiCA, the Bank of Spain's innovation hub and new Spanish sandboxes such as the AI pilot under RD 817/2023, Eco-Lab and the mobility sandbox. Spain opened further sandboxes (AI pilot, Eco-Lab, mobility) modelled on this one. The same report counts 117 applications over ten cohorts, four projects fully in the market and three legal changes traced to tests: Law 6/2023 on DLT securities and fund units, and RD 668/2023 on pension contributions. Read as one regime, the decline is real. Read as Spain's whole sandbox capacity, it overstates erosion. Every figure is a PDF read and there is no machine-readable series. The cohort chart in section 1.1 gives per-cohort counts only as unlabelled values, so the record uses the two figures stated in prose.

• 🇿🇦South Africalinked to Firms through regulatory sandboxesstarted 2020still operating

  IFWG Regulatory Sandbox

  South Africa's Intergovernmental Fintech Working Group, a joint body of the financial regulators, opened a cross-regulator sandbox in April 2020 that took 54 unique applications and admitted nine sandbox tests from eight firms in its first cohort, then moved to a rolling intake.

  9 sandbox tests, sandbox tests admitted to the first ifwg cohort, 2020. 54 applications, unique applications to the first cohort, 2020-05-15. South African Reserve Bank for the Intergovernmental Fintech Working Group, First Regulatory Sandbox Report, October 2022, retrieved 2026-10-01.

  How it worked: The Reserve Bank, the FSCA and other financial regulators ran one sandbox through a joint working group, so an innovator whose product crossed mandates such as crypto cross-border payments was tested by every relevant regulator at once.

  Limits: Nine tests is a small count, and the source is the regulators reporting on their own sandbox. The report does not show that any rule changed because of a test: it says two tests confirmed compliance with existing rules and seven produced insights for possible future frameworks. The 'operating' status rests on the October 2022 statement that the IFWG voted to move to a rolling intake. No official page that opened on the retrieval date counted participants after the first cohort, and the IFWG's own site (ifwg.co.za) did not respond to scripted requests. The sandbox covers financial services only, so it shows nothing about controlled trial regimes in other sectors. The figures are in a PDF.

• 🇯🇵Japanlinked to Firms through regulatory sandboxesstarted 2018still operating

  Project-based regulatory sandbox (new technology demonstration scheme)

  Japan's cross-government regulatory sandbox, created in 2018 under the Productivity Improvement Act and made permanent in 2021 under the Industrial Competitiveness Enhancement Act, had approved 33 demonstration plans involving 152 businesses by 19 March 2025, across mobility, IoT, fintech and healthcare.

  33 plans, demonstration plans approved under the regulatory sandbox, cumulative, 2025-03-19. 152 businesses, businesses in approved plans, cumulative, 2025-03-19. Cabinet Secretariat, regulatory sandbox one-stop window, 'Japan's Regulatory Sandbox' briefing, retrieved 2026-10-01.

  How it worked: The Cabinet Secretariat opened one government-wide window where a firm can propose a time- and participant-limited trial, and the minister responsible for each affected law approves it after checking with an expert committee, so ministries must answer within fixed timelines and use the trial data to review the rule.

  Limits: The count comes from the sandbox's own secretariat in a promotional briefing, not a statistics release. Thirty-three plans over more than six years is about five a year, a modest rate for an economy of Japan's size, and the count says nothing about how many trials led to a permanent rule change; the annex lists some special measures (for example a 2020 insurance-law exception for P2P insurance) but the briefing gives no total of rules amended. A plan is counted at approval, not completion, and several approved plans are small single-firm demonstrations. The briefing's annex dates each approval: 19 of the 33 plans were approved by October 2020, and about three a year since, with one in 2024, so the scheme's use slowed sharply after its first two years. Japan runs other experimentation regimes (national strategic special zones, the grey-zone resolution system, the FSA fintech hub) that are not in this count, so it understates sandbox-type activity as the construct defines it while also overstating it as evidence of reform.

• 🇺🇸United Stateslinked to Firms through regulatory sandboxesstarted 2019dismantled

  CFPB Compliance Assistance Sandbox, rescinded in 2022 and withdrawn again in 2025

  The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau opened a national Compliance Assistance Sandbox in September 2019, issued two sandbox approval orders in December 2020, terminated one of them in June 2022 and rescinded the policy with effect from 30 September 2022; a reissued version of January 2025 was withdrawn in May 2025.

  2 approval orders, compliance assistance sandbox approval orders listed as granted, 2020-12. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Innovation: granted applications, retrieved 2026-10-02.

  How it worked: A federal consumer-finance regulator offered firms a statutory safe harbour and a written approval that a described product complied with named laws, in exchange for sharing data during the test. A later leadership judged that the policies did not advance innovation and lacked transparency, let the information-collection authority lapse and rescinded the policy.

  Limits: The count of two is ours, made by counting the approval orders the CFPB lists as granted (Payactiv and Synchrony Bank); the page also lists one template (Build Commonwealth) and separate No-Action Letters and Trial Disclosure waivers, which are not counted here. The rescission and the 2025 withdrawal are read from Federal Register notices on govinfo.gov (87 FR 58439, 90 FR 1974 and 90 FR 20086), not from the cited page. The CFPB page is blocked to some automated clients. Two approvals over three years is evidence that the federal consumer-finance sandbox barely operated before it was ended, not that it failed on its merits: the Bureau's stated reasons were that the policies did not advance consumer-beneficial innovation and failed to meet standards for transparency and stakeholder participation. State sandboxes (Arizona, Utah and others) are subnational and are not counted.

• 🇨🇦Canadalinked to Firms through regulatory sandboxesstarted 2016delivered and closed

  CSA Regulatory Sandbox, succeeded by the Financial Innovation Hub

  Canada's provincial securities regulators, acting jointly as the Canadian Securities Administrators, authorised 13 firms through the CSA Regulatory Sandbox between 2016 and 2021, before it was succeeded by the CSA Financial Innovation Hub and its decision list stopped being updated in December 2023.

  13 firms, firms listed as authorised in the former csa regulatory sandbox, 2023-12-18. Canadian Securities Administrators, Former CSA Regulatory Sandbox decisions, retrieved 2026-10-02.

  How it worked: Thirteen provincial and territorial securities regulators agreed to process fintech registrations and exemptive relief faster and on a time-limited basis through a shared sandbox, then folded it into a broader innovation hub once crypto platforms moved to their own registration track.

  Limits: The 13 is ours, counted from the firms the page lists under 'Former CSA Regulatory Sandbox'; the crypto trading platform decisions on the same page belong to a separate pre-registration process and are not counted. Most authorisations were crypto funds and token offerings from 2017 to 2019, and the page says nothing about outcomes. The sandbox was succeeded by the CSA Financial Innovation Hub, whose page lists research, workshops and 'testing environments' among possible activities, so the testing function may not be wholly gone; what ended is the named regime and its public register, which is why the record is concluded rather than dismantled. The earliest listed decision (AngelList, October 2016) predates the sandbox's 2017 start and is listed under it by the CSA. The site sits behind a JavaScript challenge that blocks simple scripted fetches.

• 🇦🇺Australialinked to Firms through regulatory sandboxesstarted 2020still operating

  ASIC enhanced regulatory sandbox

  Australia's government introduced the enhanced regulatory sandbox on 1 September 2020, letting firms test financial services and credit activities for up to 24 months without a licence, and ASIC's register lists 23 users, four current and 19 past.

  23 entities, entities listed as current or past users of the enhanced regulatory sandbox exemption, 2026-10-02. Australian Securities and Investments Commission, Enhanced regulatory sandbox (ERS), retrieved 2026-10-02.

  How it worked: Parliament and Treasury put a licensing exemption into regulation, so an eligible firm can notify ASIC and start testing within set client and exposure limits, rather than applying for case-by-case relief.

  Limits: The 23 is ours, counted from the two expandable lists ('Current users' 4, 'Past users' 19) on the day of retrieval; the page carries no headline total or reference date, and the lists change as exemptions start and lapse. Users notify ASIC rather than being selected, so the count measures take-up of an exemption, not supervised trials, and the page does not say how many past users went on to obtain a licence or simply stopped. Twenty-three users in six years is small for Australia's financial sector. ASIC's earlier sandbox, which the ERS superseded, is not counted.

• 🇩🇪Germanylinked to Firms through regulatory sandboxesstarted 2017delivered and closed

  SINTEG-Verordnung, the energy-transition experimentation clause

  Germany's federal government ran a time-limited regulatory experimentation clause for the SINTEG smart-energy showcases from June 2017 to June 2022, under which the Federal Network Agency received 49 notifications of experiments but only two claims for compensation of regulatory costs.

  49 notifications, notifications to the bundesnetzagentur under § 3 sinteg-v, 2017-06/2022-06. 2 applications, applications for compensation of economic disadvantages under the clause, 2017-2022. Bundesregierung (BMWK), Erfahrungen mit der SINTEG-Verordnung, Bericht nach § 13 SINTEG-V, retrieved 2026-10-02.

  How it worked: The federal government wrote a time-boxed ordinance letting showcase participants trial flexible grid use and be compensated afterwards for network charges and levies they would otherwise have lost, with the network regulator verifying each claim.

  Limits: Both figures are inside a PDF (pages 4 and 5). The clause was open only to participants in the five funded SINTEG showcases, not to every firm in the country. A notification is an announcement of intent, not a completed trial, and the government's own report says use of the compensation mechanism fell well short of expectations because participants had to bear losses first and faced high administrative cost. The regulation expired by design in 2022. Because its core was ex post compensation, the report says the general legal framework applied essentially unchanged to participants, apart from the § 5 derogation for flexibility platforms.

• 🇳🇱Netherlandslinked to Firms through regulatory sandboxesstarted 2015operating below its peak

  Experimenten Elektriciteitswet 2015-2018, and its erosion

  The Dutch economy ministry let energy cooperatives and owners' associations deviate from the Electricity Act 1998 through 19 exemptions granted in four rounds between 2015 and 2018, then closed the scheme to new entrants; by 2024 only 10 of the experiments were operational.

  10 experiments, experiments operational under the exemption scheme, 2024. 19 exemptions, exemptions granted 2015 to 2018 (peak), 2018. Rijksdienst voor Ondernemend Nederland, Tussentijdse evaluatie Besluit experimenten decentrale duurzame elektriciteitsopwekking (January 2025), retrieved 2026-10-02.

  How it worked: The ministry used a decree under the Electricity Act to let local cooperatives run their own project grids and supply members for up to ten years, testing whether the full act needed to apply to local renewable generation.

  Limits: Both figures are inside a PDF (section 3, page labelled 4 of 12, PDF page 5). Nineteen is the total ever granted, used as the peak because no entry was possible after 2018. It counts exemptions and the 10 counts operating experiments, so the gap mixes projects that never started with ones that stopped; the sources do not show 19 operating at once. The only same-unit loss they document is from 19 exemptions granted to 15 still held. RVO's scheme page gives a third figure, 15 current exemption holders, which counts exemptions still held rather than experiments running. The minister closed the scheme on the advice of the Raad van State pending the new Energiewet (in force 1 January 2026), so part of the fall is a planned run-down rather than failure. The experiments are small local grids, and the report itself says their number and size limit what can be concluded.

• 🇫🇷Francelinked to Firms through regulatory sandboxesstarted 2020still operating

  Bac à sable réglementaire in the energy sector

  Under the 2019 energy and climate law, France's energy regulator CRE and the energy directorate DGEC granted temporary derogations from network access rules to 30 projects, 25 by CRE and 5 by DGEC, of which six were running and reporting indicators in May 2025 and two had been generalised into regulation in 2024.

  30 projects, projects granted derogations under the energy regulatory sandbox, 2025-05-27. Commission de régulation de l'énergie, Rapport n°2025-03 sur l'avancement des projets bénéficiant de dérogations, retrieved 2026-10-02.

  How it worked: Parliament gave the energy regulator and the ministry a power to grant time-limited derogations from network access conditions, first through application windows and since November 2022 on a rolling basis, with annual public progress reports.

  Limits: The figure is inside a PDF (page 3). A derogation granted is not a trial run: the same report says only six of the 30 were in progress and producing indicators, and 14 further requests were awaiting a decision, mostly at DGEC. Progress data come from project holders and network operators. The sandbox covers network access and use in electricity and gas only, so it says nothing about experimentation elsewhere in French regulation.

• 🇮🇹Italylinked to Firms through regulatory sandboxesstarted 2021operating below its peak

  Italy's FinTech regulatory sandbox, and its contraction

  Italy's FinTech sandbox, run by the Bank of Italy, Consob and IVASS under the MEF's FinTech Committee, admitted 16 projects from its first application window (November 2021 to January 2022) but only 3 from its second (November to December 2023), after applications fell by about 80.7 percent.

  3 projects admitted, projects admitted to the sandbox from the second application window (2 by ivass, 1 by the bank of italy, 0 by consob), 2024. 16 projects admitted, projects admitted from the first application window, the peak (13 by the bank of italy, 3 by ivass), 2022. Ministry of Economy and Finance (Department of the Treasury), Relazione sulle attivita del Comitato FinTech 2023-2024, retrieved 2026-10-02.

  How it worked: The MEF's FinTech Committee opened timed application windows in which each supervisor admitted projects to tests of six months, extendable to at most 18 months, with tailored conditions, and demand fell once operators learned how heavy admission was and found lighter informal channels at the Bank of Italy.

  Limits: The counts are projects, not firms: the IVASS projects in the second window involved several firms each (for example ITAS Mutua with ANIA, Autovia and Connexa InsTech), while the one Bank of Italy project was a single FinTech operator, so the indicator's firms-per-million figure would need a firm count the report does not give. Per million people the sandbox admitted roughly 0.27 projects from the first window and 0.05 from the second; those ratios are our computation with a population the source does not state. The sandbox runs in windows rather than continuously, so the two numbers are two cohorts, not two years. The MEF attributes the fall to an admission process that operators and the supervisors themselves found burdensome and to the Bank of Italy's informal channels (Canale Fintech, Milano Hub) absorbing demand, so part of the decline is innovation dialogue moving outside the sandbox, which the indicator would not see. The Bank of Italy's sandbox page shows both cohorts as concluded and lists no window after 2023 as of retrieval; a new window or a redesigned regime would change the status. The report is the MEF reporting on a regime it chairs, and the MEF itself judges the sandbox experience 'soddisfacente' while calling for procedural simplification.

• 🇬🇭Ghanalinked to Firms through regulatory sandboxesstarted 2026still operating

  Bank of Ghana Regulatory Sandbox

  The Bank of Ghana, which launched a regulatory and innovation sandbox pilot in 2021, admitted six firms into its Regulatory Sandbox for one year in January 2026 to test the exchange, custody, administration and issuance of virtual assets.

  6 firms, entities admitted into the bank of ghana regulatory sandbox (virtual assets cohort), 2026-01. Bank of Ghana, press release 'List of participants - Regulatory Sandbox', 22 January 2026, retrieved 2026-10-02.

  How it worked: The Bank of Ghana's FinTech and Innovation Office admits named firms for a fixed one-year test under supervision, using each cohort to validate rules it has not yet issued, here for virtual assets.

  Limits: The metric is a count of six firms in one cohort, taken from a press release rather than a statistical series; divided by Ghana's population it is well under one firm per million people. It counts admissions only, not completions or exits. The 2021 launch was a pilot run with EMTECH Service LLC, not a documented admission, so the start year is the first documented admission, 2026. The indicator sums every regulator in the country, and this record covers the Bank of Ghana only. A sandbox at this scale is evidence that the instrument exists and is used, not that it operates at national scale in the sense of a mass programme.

• 🇰🇿Kazakhstanlinked to Firms through regulatory sandboxesstarted 2018still operating

  AFSA FinTech Lab at the Astana International Financial Centre

  The Astana Financial Services Authority granted five FinTech Lab sandbox licences in 2022, saw the first participant graduate to a full licence that year, and had 18 licensed firms in its sandbox at the end of 2022.

  5 firms, fintech lab licences granted (firms admitted to the sandbox) in 2022, 2022. 18 firms, licensed companies in the fintech lab at end of year, 2022. Astana Financial Services Authority, 2022 Annual Report, retrieved 2026-10-02.

  How it worked: The Astana Financial Services Authority grants individual, time-limited FinTech Lab licences with requirements tailored to each firm, and graduates a firm to full authorisation when its test succeeds.

  Limits: The regulator is reporting on itself in an annual report, and the counts stop at 2022. Admissions plus completions in 2022 come to six firms, which is well under one per million people. AFSA regulates only the Astana International Financial Centre, a special jurisdiction under English-style common law, so the sandbox sits outside Kazakhstan's ordinary financial regulation; the indicator sums every regulator in the country, and the National Bank and the Agency for Regulation and Development of Financial Markets are not counted here. Many participants are crypto exchanges drawn by the AIFC regime, and eight licences were withdrawn in the same year five were granted, so the counts measure churn as much as successful testing. The start year is inferred from 'fifth year' rather than stated.

• 🇹🇳Tunisialinked to Firms through regulatory sandboxesstarted 2020delivered and closed

  Banque Centrale de Tunisie regulatory sandbox, first cohort

  The Banque Centrale de Tunisie launched a regulatory sandbox in January 2020, admitted four fintech solutions to its first cohort in September 2020, ran tests with real customers and partner banks for 13 months, notified exit in September 2022, and drafted a circular on digital enrolment and remote bank account opening from the results (BCT Rapport annuel 2022).

  4 solutions, fintech solutions admitted to the first cohort of the bct regulatory sandbox, 2020-09. Banque Centrale de Tunisie, Rapport annuel 2020 (June 2021), retrieved 2026-10-02.

  How it worked: The central bank set up a fintech committee, published an access guide, selected four solutions against its own strategic priorities, exempted them from specified rules for a bounded test with partner banks, and then wrote the tested remote-onboarding practice into a banking circular.

  Limits: The count is the regulator's own report of its own programme. The number does not say how many of the four completed, only that exit plans were validated. Only one regulator is covered; capital markets and insurance regulators are not. Four solutions in one cohort over 2020 to 2022 is about 0.33 admissions per million people (our computation against the World Bank's 2020 population of 11,974,057), and the record shows one cohort only.

• 🇲🇿Mozambiquelinked to Firms through regulatory sandboxesstarted 2018still operating

  Sandbox Regulatório do Banco de Moçambique

  Banco de Moçambique admitted 11 participants, chosen from 19 applicants, to the sixth edition of its regulatory sandbox in March 2025, and at the same ceremony gave participation certificates to the five fintechs that had completed the fifth edition.

  11 participants, participants admitted to the sixth edition of the regulatory sandbox, 2025-03-28. 5 firms, fintechs completing the fifth edition and receiving participation certificates, 2025-03-28. Banco de Moçambique, highlight 'Governor Rogério Zandamela launches the sixth edition of the regulatory sandbox', retrieved 2026-10-02.

  How it worked: The central bank runs its sandbox in annual editions: it opens a call, selects a cohort, runs roughly nine months of preparation, testing and reporting, and certifies the firms that finish so they can apply for a licence.

  Limits: The regulator reports on its own sandbox in a news item, not in a statistical series, and the page gives one cohort only: it does not give cumulative admissions or exits across the six editions, nor how many of the 11 went on to complete testing. 'Participants' can include incumbents as well as start-ups (the five graduates named include Vodafone M-Pesa, a large mobile money operator), so the count is not a count of new firms. Completing the sandbox makes a firm eligible to apply for a licence; the page does not say how many were licensed. The 2018 start is the establishment date in the World Bank's Appendix 3 database (May 2018, five firms in the sandbox at the time), not stated on the cited page. The sandbox page (bancomoc.mz, BM Regulatory Sandbox) shows a call for an eighth edition dated September 2026 and a seventh-edition invitation dated 1 October 2025 for testing from February 2026, so the regime was running at retrieval, but neither document carries a participant count. Against a population of about 34 million, 11 admissions is about 0.3 per million people.

• 🇲🇺Mauritiuslinked to Firms through regulatory sandboxesstarted 2018still operating

  Regulatory Sandbox Licence of the Economic Development Board

  Mauritius's Economic Development Board, operating a regulatory sandbox licence regime for innovative financial projects since September 2018 by the World Bank's dating, had nine firms in its sandbox when the World Bank compiled its global database of sandboxes in 2020.

  9 firms, firms in the sandbox (edb regulatory sandbox licence), 2020 (database published November 2020). World Bank, Global Experiences from Regulatory Sandboxes (Fintech Note No. 8, November 2020), Appendix 3 Database of Global Sandboxes, row 'Mauritius, EDB', retrieved 2026-10-02.

  How it worked: The investment promotion board issued time-bound sandbox licences to firms proposing financial activities for which Mauritian law had no framework, on the recommendation of a national committee, before the sector regulators took on their own sandbox authorisations.

  Limits: The figure is a stock of firms in the sandbox at an unstated date in 2020, compiled by the World Bank from EDB sources, not an annual count of admissions and exits, and it sits in a wide table in the plain-text version of the report (the row lists 'Operational', 9, 'Regulatory Sandbox license', established Sep-18). EDB's own annual reports do not give admissions: the 2020/21 report says only that the EDB 'registered 8 new applications for fintech RSL' and that licences were issued when positively determined, and the 2021/22, 2022/23 and 2023/24 reports read today do not mention the licence at all. A licence under the EDB regime could cover activities with no legal framework at all, so some licensees used it as a market-entry route rather than a time-limited test. Since 2021 the sandbox function has also sat with the sector regulators: the Financial Services Commission issued its first Regulatory Sandbox Authorisation under section 14B of the Financial Services Act on 30 March 2022 and reported that entity exiting after successful testing in its 2022/23 annual report, and the Bank of Mauritius issued a Guideline for Regulatory Sandbox Authorisation in May 2024 with no participant count in its 2024 annual report or December 2024 Financial Stability Report. Status operating rests on those successor regimes, not on evidence that the EDB licence itself still admits firms.

• 🇺🇬Ugandalinked to Firms through regulatory sandboxesstarted 2021still operating

  Bank of Uganda regulatory sandbox

  The Bank of Uganda reviewed five applications to its regulatory sandbox in the year to June 2025, issued deficiency letters to all of them, and reported one firm, Rexial Payment Systems Limited, exiting the sandbox after testing and applying for a payment systems operator licence.

  1 firms, firms exiting the regulatory sandbox in the financial year, FY2024/25 (July 2024 to June 2025). 5 applications, applications to the regulatory sandbox reviewed in the financial year, FY2024/25. Bank of Uganda, Integrated Annual Report for the year ended 30 June 2025, 'FinTech innovation and emerging technology exploration', retrieved 2026-10-02.

  How it worked: The central bank screens sandbox applications against its framework, sends deficiency letters rather than admitting weak proposals, supervises the experiments it has admitted, and steers firms that finish testing into its licensing regime.

  Limits: The bank reports on itself, in a 188-page PDF (PDF page 59). The report gives no count of firms admitted in the year: that none of the five applicants was admitted is our reading of 'Deficiency letters were issued to all applicants', so the year's admissions may be zero, and the count of firms still testing is not given. One exit is the whole completion figure, and the report does not say whether the licence was granted. The 2021 start is the year the sandbox framework launched, not stated in this report. The same report lists 'review the regulatory sandbox framework' among next-year priorities. The Capital Markets Authority launched separate Regulatory Sandbox Rules in October 2025 (cmauganda.co.ug news, 8 October 2025) with no participant count, so the record covers only the central bank's sandbox. Against about 48 million people, one completion is a rate near zero per million.

• 🇿🇲Zambialinked to Firms through regulatory sandboxesstarted 2021delivered and closed

  Regulatory Sandbox Framework for Capital Markets, first cohort

  Zambia's Securities and Exchange Commission admitted four innovations to the first cohort of its capital markets sandbox, with testing starting on 19 November 2021, and announced on 15 July 2024 that live testing had been completed and directed all four to suspend operations inside the sandbox pending evaluation and exit.

  4 innovations, innovations admitted to the first sandbox cohort and completing live testing, 2024-07-15. Securities and Exchange Commission of Zambia, Press Release 'Regulatory Sandbox Framework for Capital Markets' (15 July 2024), retrieved 2026-10-02.

  How it worked: The securities regulator admitted a single cohort of capital markets innovations, let them take real investors under parameters and caps, then froze onboarding at the end of testing so it could evaluate each before deciding on commercial deployment.

  Limits: The regulator reports on itself in a one-page press release (PDF). The four are named innovations from four firms (Kukula Capital, Lupiya Circle, Lusaka Securities Exchange and Premier Credit Zambia), one of them the national stock exchange. The release says the framework was issued on 18 December 2022 but that testing began on 'Wednesday, 19th November 2021', which cannot both be right, and neither date matches its weekday (19 November 2021 was a Friday, 18 December 2022 a Sunday); the start year 2021 is the earliest date the release gives and is not confirmed by any other source read. Completion of testing is not a successful exit: the release says each innovator will or will not be permitted to deploy commercially after review, and no outcome statement was found on the SEC site; its list of sandbox participants page is empty. If the 2021 date is right, testing ran over two and a half years for one cohort of four, and no second cohort was found. The Bank of Zambia runs a separate sandbox and reports that 'one financial innovation exited the Sandbox after a successful test' in 2024 (Annual Report 2024, printed page 69, PDF page 86, https://www.boz.zm/sites/default/files/2026-01/Bank_of_Zambia_2024_Annual_Report.pdf); summed, the two regulators show about five firms through a sandbox over three years for 21 million people.

• 🇿🇼Zimbabwelinked to Firms through regulatory sandboxesstarted 2026still operating

  Securities and Exchange Commission of Zimbabwe regulatory sandbox

  The Securities and Exchange Commission of Zimbabwe published a list of seven innovative financial technology solutions approved for testing in its regulatory sandbox in July 2026, among them asset, securities and infrastructure tokenisation platforms, a crowdfunding platform and a blockchain capital raising platform.

  7 solutions, solutions approved for participation in regulatory sandbox testing, 2026-07-24. Securities and Exchange Commission of Zimbabwe, Public Notice SCZ24072026 'Update on approved regulatory sandbox participants', retrieved 2026-10-02.

  How it worked: The securities regulator approves named solutions into a timed, supervised sandbox under its own guidelines and publishes the list as a public notice so investors can tell a sandbox participant from a licensed firm.

  Limits: The notice is a one-page PDF listing approvals; it calls itself an update but gives no earlier list, no admission date per firm, no testing period and no exits, so the figure is a stock of approved participants at July 2026, not an annual admissions count, and started is set to the notice year because no earlier admission was read at a source. Approval for testing is not testing: the notice warns that representations beyond testing are misleading, and some entries (Financial Securities Exchange, a licensed exchange) are incumbents. The Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe has run a separate fintech regulatory sandbox since March 2021, whose admissions are not counted here because no current count was read at an official source today. Seven approvals against about 16 million people is about 0.4 per million.

• 🇦🇹Austrialinked to Firms through regulatory sandboxesstarted 2020still operating

  FMA Regulatory Sandbox

  Austria's Financial Market Authority admitted eight FinTechs to its Regulatory Sandbox between its launch on 1 September 2020 and January 2023, five seeking authorisation as European crowdfunding service providers and three offering crypto-asset or securities services, and one participant had obtained a licence for a digital trading platform by the start of 2022.

  8 firms, fintechs admitted to the regulatory sandbox since launch, 2023-01-02. 5 firms per year, participants per year the federal funding was designed for, in the 2019 impact assessment of the fmabg amendment, 2019. Finanzmarktaufsicht (FMA), press release 'FMA's Regulatory Sandbox presents positive results', 2 January 2023, retrieved 2026-10-02.

  How it worked: Parliament amended the Financial Market Authority Act to create a sandbox at the FMA, with a federal grant for running it and an advisory board at the finance ministry that comments on each application's economic interest and readiness before the FMA decides.

  Limits: The count is the regulator's own and dates from January 2023; no later total was found, and an FMA notice on a later admission returned 403 to a script and was not read. Eight admissions in 28 months is below the five a year the federal contribution of EUR 500,000 a year was sized for (impact assessment, Vorblatt, https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokumente/Begut/BEGUT_COO_2026_100_2_1632524/COO_2026_100_2_1632539.pdf, page 1), so the regime ran under its design volume. The sandbox grants no relief from regulatory requirements: the impact assessment says a core principle is that requirements are not lowered, so it is supervised testing with guidance rather than derogation. Five of the eight were crowdfunding platforms preparing for one EU regulation, which inflates the count with a one-off wave. Admission is not completion: the release names one licence obtained. The page was read through WebFetch because the FMA site returns 403 to curl.

• 🇩🇰Denmarklinked to Firms through regulatory sandboxesstarted 2024still operating

  Regulatorisk sandkasse for AI (Datatilsynet and Digitaliseringsstyrelsen)

  Denmark's data protection authority and digitalisation agency selected two projects from 23 applications for the first round of their regulatory sandbox for AI in July 2024, two from 18 applications in June 2025 and three more in July 2026, seven projects in all.

  7 projects, projects selected across the first three rounds (2 + 2 + 3), 2026-07-09. 23 applications, applications received for the first round, 2024-05-21. Datatilsynet, news 'Tre nye AI-projekter udvalgt til den regulatoriske sandkasse' (9 July 2026), with the round one (8 July 2024) and round two (18 June 2025) announcements, retrieved 2026-10-02.

  How it worked: Two agencies run annual application rounds, pick a handful of AI projects whose questions others share, give each months of guided dialogue on data protection, and publish final reports so the answers reach firms that never applied.

  Limits: The total of seven is our sum of three announcements (https://www.datatilsynet.dk/presse-og-nyheder/nyhedsarkiv/2024/jul/to-ai-projekter-udvalgt-til-foerste-runde-af-den-regulatoriske-sandkasse and https://www.datatilsynet.dk/presse-og-nyheder/nyhedsarkiv/2025/jun/to-ai-projekter-udvalgt-til-anden-runde-af-den-regulatoriske-sandkasse); the third announcement gives no application count. Not every participant is a firm: round one included a project led by three municipalities with Systematic, round two the charity Boerns Vilkaar, and round three Region Hovedstaden with Kintella, so firms are fewer than seven. The sandbox offers guidance on data protection law, not derogations, and it is a GDPR sandbox rather than the AI Act sandbox the EU requires. Applications fell from 23 to 18 between the first two rounds. The Danish FSA's FT Lab, the financial sandbox since 2018, publishes admissions only as individual news items and no total, so it was not used; the national figure across regulators is therefore higher than seven by an unknown amount.

• 🇳🇴Norwaylinked to Firms through regulatory sandboxesstarted 2020still operating

  Datatilsynet's regulatory sandbox for privacy-friendly innovation

  Norway's data protection authority ran eight sandbox projects at the end of 2025, five of them jointly with the Financial Supervisory Authority on data sharing against financial crime, and completed two projects (Akershus University Hospital and Mobai's SALT biometric verification) during the year.

  8 projects, sandbox projects in progress at year end, 2025-12-31. 2 projects, sandbox projects completed during the year, 2025. Datatilsynet, Aarsrapport for 2025, chapter 'Prioritert omraade II, Regulatorisk sandkasse', retrieved 2026-10-02.

  How it worked: The data protection authority takes a few projects a year into a structured dialogue on how privacy law applies to a new use of data, then publishes a final report and podcast so the answer reaches the whole sector, and in 2025 opened a joint sandbox with the financial supervisor.

  Limits: The authority reports on its own sandbox. It gives dialogue-based guidance and no exemption from law, so it is a controlled advisory regime rather than a derogation sandbox. Participants include public bodies (a hospital) and banks working as a group, so projects are not firms. The report is internally inconsistent on the joint financial sandbox: the chapter says five projects, the director's foreword in the PDF version (https://www.datatilsynet.no/contentassets/112abf21f900417f859c66c8f7d838de/datatilsynets-arsrapport-for-2025.pdf) says four were taken in; Finanstilsynet's own announcement of 2025 names five. The joint projects are counted here and are not added again from Finanstilsynet. Finanstilsynet's separate fintech sandbox admitted few firms (two of 12 applicants in the first pool in 2020, then single firms such as Abendum, R8Me and Qbig) and was not summed in. The sandbox is staffed by one full-time coordinator, per the same PDF, which limits its scale. The 2020 start is from the authority's earlier evaluation material, not read today.

• 🇱🇹Lithuanialinked to Firms through regulatory sandboxesstarted 2018still operating

  Bank of Lithuania regulatory sandbox, with one test in seven years

  The Bank of Lithuania opened its regulatory sandbox to applications on 15 October 2018 and, by the page's last update on 27 June 2025, listed one innovation ever tested in it: UAB Workpower's peer-to-peer insurance platform, authorised on 13 June 2019 and tested from 24 October 2019 to 23 October 2020, which led the bank to draft proportionate rules for P2P insurance.

  1 firms, innovations listed as tested in the regulatory sandbox since applications opened, 2025-06-27. Lietuvos bankas, Regulatory sandbox page (archived copy of 20 August 2026), retrieved 2026-10-02.

  How it worked: The central bank offered live testing under supervision for financial innovations new to the Lithuanian market and used its one completed test to write proportionate guidelines for peer-to-peer insurance.

  Limits: The live page (https://www.lb.lt/en/regulatory-sandbox) returned a bot challenge and 403 to scripts, so the archived copy was read; it carries the bank's own 'last update' date of 27 June 2025. The count is one firm in about seven years, so the regime exists but barely delivers; the page's heading 'Financial innovations currently tested' still shows a test that ended in 2020. The bank's better-known LBChain blockchain platform, which 11 fintechs from 8 countries used during development to May 2020 (https://www.lb.lt/en/lbchain, archived), was a technical test environment without regulatory relief and is not counted. The bank also runs a newer sustainability-report test under the GFIN initiative (news of 16 July 2021) that is not listed as a firm test on the page. Lithuania's high fintech licensing volume runs through ordinary licensing, not this sandbox.

• 🇸🇰Slovakialinked to Firms through regulatory sandboxesstarted 2022still operating

  Narodna banka Slovenska regulatory sandbox

  Slovakia's central bank opened its regulatory sandbox on 1 January 2022 and lists one former participant, Crowdberry Investment Platform, which entered on 22 November 2023, tested an electronic bulletin board for secondary trading of crowdfunded securities with selected clients from 15 December 2024 to 18 April 2025, and exited on 15 May 2025.

  1 firms, firms listed as former participants (completed) of the regulatory sandbox, 2025-05-15. Narodna banka Slovenska, Regulatory sandbox page, retrieved 2026-10-02.

  How it worked: The central bank admits firms year-round into a preparation phase of up to six months of consultations and a testing phase of up to six months on real clients under a test plan, ending with a final report and meeting.

  Limits: The page lists former participants only and gives no count of current participants or applications, so admissions in progress are unknown; one completion in nearly four years of operation is the figure the page supports. The sandbox waives no regulatory requirement: the page says requirements cannot be waived, so it is supervised testing with consultation. The bank states that its innovation hub handles far more interactions than the sandbox, which reflects the design rather than a measured failure. The regulator reports on its own programme.

• 🇺🇦Ukrainelinked to Firms through regulatory sandboxesstarted 2025still operating

  Sandbox for AI and blockchain products, Ministry of Digital Transformation and Ukrainian Startup Fund

  Ukraine's Ministry of Digital Transformation and the Ukrainian Startup Fund opened a sandbox for AI and blockchain products in 2025 and, in its first year, received more than 80 applications and admitted 15 companies to a first cohort that completed testing.

  15 companies, companies admitted to the first cohort that completed testing, 2026-06-04. 80 applications, applications received in the first year (more than), 2026-06-04. Ministry of Digital Transformation of Ukraine, AI portal, news item 'One year of the AI and blockchain Sandbox' (4 June 2026), retrieved 2026-10-02.

  How it worked: The digital ministry, with a state startup fund, invites AI and blockchain firms to submit products for an expert audit across law, technology and business, and feeds what it learns into drafting AI legislation aligned with the EU AI Act.

  Limits: The ministry reports on its own programme in a news item, not a statistics page, and 80 is a floor ('more than 80'). The sandbox grants no statutory derogation that this check found: what participants receive is a free legal, technical and business audit by outside experts with recommendations, and the ministry's statement that firms test 'without fines or legal risks' is not backed by a legal instrument read today, so this is closer to an advisory sandbox than to a regime that relaxes rules, and it sits at the weak edge of the D152 construct. 'Completed testing' means completed the audit cycle; the ministry's page of 21 October 2025 names Artellence as the first company to finish it. Higher figures in the press (over 100 applications, 25 companies under review) were not found at an official publisher and are not used. The National Bank of Ukraine runs a statutory regulatory platform under the payment services and financial services laws, open only to firms it already licenses, but its page (promo.bank.gov.ua/sandbox) publishes no participant count, so the figure covers one programme and not every regulator.

• 🇷🇺Russialinked to Firms through regulatory sandboxesstarted 2018still operating

  Bank of Russia regulatory sandbox (regulativnaya pesochnitsa)

  The Bank of Russia decided in 2025 to create the legal conditions for introducing 4 digital financial services piloted in its regulatory sandbox, out of 10 pilot applications it considered that year in identification, artificial intelligence, insurance, distributed ledgers and other areas.

  4 applications, sandbox applications for which the bank decided to create legal conditions for introduction (the step its sandbox page says follows a successfully completed pilot), 2025. 10 applications, applications to pilot services considered in the regulatory sandbox, 2025. Bank of Russia, Annual Report for 2025 (Godovoy otchet za 2025 god), section 2.5.1 'Development of innovation on the financial market', retrieved 2026-10-02.

  How it worked: The central bank runs an isolated environment in which any organisation can pilot a financial service that existing law would not allow, and when a pilot succeeds it approves a roadmap of legal changes so the service can be introduced.

  Limits: The central bank reports on its own sandbox, in a 351-page PDF of 57 MB, on PDF page 213 (printed page 211). The unit is applications, not firms: the report does not say how many firms stand behind the 10 applications or the 4 decisions, and one firm can file several. The 4 are read as completions because the Bank's sandbox page (https://www.cbr.ru/fintech/regulatory_sandbox/) says it approves a roadmap for legal conditions when piloting is completed successfully; the annual report itself does not say the pilots ended in 2025, and the 10 considered are not admissions, since an application can be reviewed without a pilot running. The sandbox launched in April 2018 (the Bank's sandbox page) and the Bank said in August 2023 that 86 services had been submitted since launch, so 10 in 2025 is a modest flow, about 0.07 per million people, and 4 completions about 0.03. Experimental legal regimes under the 2020 federal law on digital innovation, which the Ministry of Economic Development registers for every sector, are a second channel the column should sum; the ministry's register did not open from here (connection refused) and its last archived copy is from 2022, so they are not counted. Participants are mostly large incumbent banks and infrastructure operators, so this is not a startup programme.

• 🇯🇴Jordanlinked to Firms through regulatory sandboxesstarted 2024still operating

  JoRegBox, the Central Bank of Jordan regulatory sandbox

  The Central Bank of Jordan approved three companies on 31 October 2024, out of nine applications to the first cohort of its JoRegBox regulatory sandbox launched in February 2024, to begin testing digital financial products with real customers, among them the escrow platforms E-Damana and Watheq.

  3 companies, companies approved to enter the sandbox for live testing, 2024-10-31. Central Bank of Jordan, news release 'CBJ approves three Entrepreneurial Companies to Enter the Regulatory Sandbox Environment (JoRegBox)', archived copy of 15 May 2025, retrieved 2026-10-02.

  How it worked: The central bank admits fintech firms in cohorts to test mature products with real customers under its supervision, and links the sandbox to the national financial inclusion strategy and the economic modernisation vision.

  Limits: The live cbj.gov.jo page refused the connection, so the number was read on a Wayback Machine copy of the central bank's own release. Three is the admission decision for one cohort, the first under the JoRegBox name, and the release gives no count of firms completing the sandbox; the bank's annual report, which would carry later cohorts and exits, was not located today. The central bank had an earlier sandbox framework, which the World Bank's 2020 survey lists as operational from April 2018; the release treats JoRegBox as a new launch on 18 February 2024, and whether firms passed through the earlier framework is not shown here. The governor has been quoted in the press giving a cumulative count of tested products, which this record does not use because no official page carrying it was opened. Three admissions against about 11 million people is about 0.3 per million. The release frames the cohort as part of the government's economic modernisation programme, so the timing is partly political.

• 🇰🇬Kyrgyzstanlinked to Firms through regulatory sandboxesstarted 2020still operating

  Special regulatory regimes (spetsialnye regulyativnye rezhimy) of the National Bank of the Kyrgyz Republic

  The National Bank of the Kyrgyz Republic approved six special regulatory regimes between October 2020 and August 2026, letting a microcredit company, three payment and e-money firms and two banks test operations outside its standing rules, judged testing successful and closed for four of them between April 2022 and February 2025, and ended one early with the licence revoked in March 2022.

  6 regimes, special regulatory regimes approved and listed in the register, 2026-08-07. 4 regimes, regimes completed with testing judged successful, 2025-02-27. National Bank of the Kyrgyz Republic, Register of special regulatory regimes (Reestr spetsialnykh regulyativnykh rezhimov), retrieved 2026-10-02.

  How it worked: The central bank grants a firm a time-limited special regime, licensed and entered in a public register with start and end dates, to test a named banking or payment operation, then records whether testing succeeded and amends its rules where it did.

  Limits: Both counts are ours, made by reading the rows of the register page (dated 2 September 2026): it lists six regimes with approval, start and end dates, the words 'testing judged successful (regime completed)' against four, 'ended early, licence revoked' against the Bakai Bank regime (September 2021 to March 2022), and a sixth, Eldik Bank, approved on 7 August 2026 and testing until August 2027; the page itself states no total. Some regimes list partner institutions (the Interbank Processing Centre) as co-participants, so the count is of regimes, not of every firm involved. Six regimes in six years, about one a year in a country of about seven million people, is a thin flow, and the regime appears only once a firm asks for it rather than through open cohorts. The register says the national bank amended its regulations in May 2024 after the Regional Payment Systems regime, but it does not show whether the other completions led to rule changes. The register is a central bank page only; other Kyrgyz regulators were not checked.

• 🇵🇰Pakistanlinked to Firms through regulatory sandboxesstarted 2020still operating

  SECP Regulatory Sandbox, four cohorts and an open window

  Pakistan's Securities and Exchange Commission approved 31 business models for testing in its Regulatory Sandbox across four annual cohorts from 2020 to 2023, out of 125 fintech applicants, with intake rising from six selected in the first cohort to 11 in the fourth.

  31 business models, business models approved for testing in the secp regulatory sandbox, four cohorts, cumulative, 2024-06-30. 11 applicants, applicants selected in cohort iv, 2023. Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan, Annual Report 2024 (year ended 30 June 2024), section 'Promoting fintech and encouraging innovation', Regulatory Sandbox, retrieved 2026-10-02.

  How it worked: The securities regulator issued sandbox guidelines under the Companies Act and ran annual cohorts in which fintech, insurtech and capital-market applicants were screened and the selected ones tested for six to nine months under agreed limits, then switched to year-round applications.

  Limits: The regulator reports on its own sandbox. The figures are in a PDF on PDF page 82 (printed page 81), with a cohort chart giving applicants and selections per year (33 and 6, 38 and 6, 28 and 8, 26 and 11); the live secp.gov.pk site returns a Cloudflare challenge to scripts, so the report was read from a Wayback Machine copy of the SECP download link. 'Approved for testing' counts admissions, not completions: the report does not say how many business models finished testing or went to market. The cohort figures sum to 31, matching the stated total. After 2023 the SECP moved to an always-open format, and the same page says it had then received three applications with one testing, a much smaller intake than cohort IV, but over a shorter and unstated period, so it is not read as a decline. The State Bank of Pakistan runs a separate sandbox whose admissions are not counted here, so the figure understates the country total the construct asks for.

• 🇯🇲Jamaicalinked to Firms through regulatory sandboxesstarted 2020still operating

  Bank of Jamaica FinTech Regulatory Sandbox

  The Bank of Jamaica's FinTech Regulatory Sandbox, effective from March 2020, had received 50 applications and approved 29 of them for testing by the end of 2025, including four new applications from three entities in 2025.

  29 applications, sandbox applications approved for testing since march 2020, cumulative, 2025-12-31. 50 applications, sandbox applications received since march 2020, cumulative, 2025-12-31. Bank of Jamaica, Annual Report 2025, 'Fintech Regulatory Sandbox Development and CBDC (JAM-DEX)', retrieved 2026-10-02.

  How it worked: The central bank opened a sandbox for deposit-takers, cambios, remittance providers, credit unions and locally incorporated fintechs partnered with a bank, admitting products to a controlled live test before authorisation.

  Limits: The central bank reports on its own sandbox. The figures are in a 33 MB PDF served at that address, on PDF page 92 (printed page 66). They count applications, not firms: one entity can file several, as the three entities filing four applications in 2025 show, and 29 is approvals since 2020, not the number testing at year end or the number that completed and launched. The report gives 46 applications at end-2024, so only four arrived in 2025, but it gives no yearly approval figures. The approvals are described as mobile wallets, debit cards and prepaid card offerings; the same section of the report covers the bank's JAM-DEX digital currency roll-out, but it does not say whether any sandbox approval relates to it. The Financial Services Commission's activity is not included.

• 🇲🇳Mongolialinked to Firms through regulatory sandboxesstarted 2021still operating

  Financial Regulatory Commission sandbox regulatory environment

  Mongolia's Financial Regulatory Commission admitted three products and services to its sandbox for one year in the fourth quarter of 2022 and released one, the MonPay digital bond, on 30 December 2022 after a year of testing, leaving four under test.

  3 products, products and services admitted to the sandbox in 2022 q4, 2022-12-31. 1 products, products and services released from the sandbox in 2022, 2022-12-30. Financial Regulatory Commission of Mongolia (Санхүүгийн зохицуулах хороо), Үйл ажиллагааны жилийн тайлан 2022 (annual activity report 2022), section 'Сэндбокс зохицуулалтын орчин', retrieved 2026-10-02.

  How it worked: The non-bank financial regulator adopted a sandbox regulation in 2021 and a sandbox council that admits fintech products for a one-year test and issues a recommendation to release each one.

  Limits: The regulator reports on itself, in Mongolian, in a PDF on PDF page 29 (printed page 30). It counts products and services, not firms. The same page breaks down requests submitted to the sandbox by type (6, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1), which sum to 15 by my addition, but it does not say over what period they were received or how many were refused. The admission figure covers one quarter, and the report gives no full-year admissions for 2021 or 2022, when MonPay's test began on 1 November 2021. Only one year was read: later FRC reports were not found today, so the record says nothing about whether the sandbox kept admitting products after 2022. The products under test were a repo platform, a peer-to-peer lender, an insurtech service and a crowdfunding platform, and virtual asset providers made up the largest group of requests. The Bank of Mongolia's activity, if any, is not included.

• 🇳🇦Namibialinked to Firms through regulatory sandboxesstarted 2023still operating

  NAMFISA Regulatory Sandbox, microlending cohort

  Namibia's non-bank financial regulator NAMFISA launched its Regulatory Sandbox in May 2023, received 10 applications for its first, microlending cohort, and had admitted three participants (ReferredBy Financial Solutions, Ergo Analytics trading as Verime, and the microlender Express Credit) with a fourth application under review by its 2025 annual report.

  3 firms, participants admitted to the namfisa regulatory sandbox (cumulative), 2025. 10 applications, applications received for the first (microlending) cohort, 2024. Namibia Financial Institutions Supervisory Authority (NAMFISA), Annual Report 2025, retrieved 2026-10-02.

  How it worked: The non-bank supervisor opens industry-specific cohorts, admits licensed firms and start-ups to test a product under supervision where current legislation would not otherwise allow it, and feeds what it learns into regulation, with a FinTech Square event as its engagement channel.

  Limits: NAMFISA is reporting on its own programme. Both figures are inside PDFs: the three admitted participants and the fourth applicant are on printed pages 87 to 88 of the Annual Report 2025 (PDF page 100), with the same count in the risk section ('three active participants and a fourth in an advanced stage'); the 10 applications are in the Annual Report 2024 (printed page 81, PDF page 48, https://www.namfisa.com.na/download/annual-report-2024/), whose chart of successful against unsuccessful applications prints labels that cannot be read reliably as counts, so the record does not use it. The reporting year ends 31 March 2025, but the text calls the third participant 'recently admitted', so the asOf is the report year, not a day. The same report's division summary for the Market Conduct and Operations function says that in the first cohort two participants were actively regulated and monitored during 2024/25, which fits the third, Express Credit, being admitted late in the year and still in mobilisation. The count is cumulative admissions over about two years, not admissions in one year, and no firm is reported as having completed or exited the sandbox; the 2024 report notes one selected entity whose start was delayed for market readiness. Three firms in a population of about three million is small, and it covers only the non-bank sector NAMFISA supervises: the Bank of Namibia's separate FinTech innovation framework publishes no participant count and is not included. A second cohort for crowdfunding and peer-to-peer lending closed applications on 23 February 2026 with no admissions published yet.

• 🇦🇿Azerbaijanlinked to Firms through regulatory sandboxesstarted 2024still operating

  Central Bank of Azerbaijan regulatory sandbox

  The Central Bank of the Republic of Azerbaijan began testing its first regulatory sandbox participant in December 2024 and admitted three more whose testing began in 2026, out of 14 applicants.

  3 firms, firms whose sandbox testing began in 2026, counted from the registry, 2026. 14 applicants (cumulative), applicants to the sandbox since launch, 2026-10. Central Bank of the Republic of Azerbaijan, Regulatory Sandbox Registry, retrieved 2026-10-02.

  How it worked: The central bank wrote rules on a special regulation regime that exempt participants from licensing, opened cohort application windows, and admitted a handful of banks and crypto firms to test products with capped users under its supervision.

  Limits: The year count of three is computed from testing start dates in the registry; the central bank publishes only undated cumulative counters (14 applicants, 4 participants), so the series has no official annual figure and earlier years cannot be reconstructed if entries are removed. The registry's completed projects section shows no entries although the first test was scheduled to end in February 2026 and is still listed as current, so firms completing the regime, half of what the indicator asks for, cannot be counted. Only one regulator is covered. A sandbox of four firms is not a national flagship in the sense of a programme policymakers name first; it is filed because it evidences this gap's construct literally.