Jurisdiction mapping
Compare regulatory treatment across jurisdictions
Structuring and domicile questions turn on where regimes actually differ. DALI surfaces the divergence rather than restating each regime in turn.
Modes
Four ways to compare
Comparative overview
How the same instrument or activity is treated across up to three jurisdictions, side by side, at the depth of a full analytical note rather than a summary table.
Novel instrument treatment
Model how a new digital asset structure would be classified under existing frameworks: where it lands, and which features drive it there.
Divergence analysis
Identify where jurisdictions genuinely disagree on an unsettled or contested question, as distinct from where they merely word the same rule differently.
Activity to authorisation
Start from a specific regulated activity and trace how it maps to authorisation, conduct and disclosure requirements in each jurisdiction.
Why it is hard
Comparison is not summarisation
Most comparative material fails in the same way: it summarises each jurisdiction separately and leaves the reader to spot the difference. That hides the thing that matters, because two regimes can describe the same outcome in incompatible language and two regimes can use identical language to reach opposite outcomes.
DALI compares at the level of the underlying concept. Where one jurisdiction's category does not map cleanly onto another's, that mismatch is the finding. It is stated rather than smoothed over by picking whichever label reads closest.
Each jurisdiction is analysed against its own retrieved sources, so a comparison is not one jurisdiction's framework imposed on the others. International standard-setting material is attributed as global rather than credited to whichever country happens to have adopted it first.
See DALI on your own matters
We run a walkthrough against a question your team is actually working on, so you can judge the citations rather than a demo script.