Financial sovereignty
Fraud prevention does not require indiscriminate surveillance. Controls should match risk and provide clear appeal routes.
Read the privacy proposal →Digital rights · Public policy · Latin America
Editorial analysis, funded by an industry sponsor, for digital-betting and crypto-asset rules that protect people without closing the market.
A public, verifiable agenda
Analytical framework
We assess each policy by its ability to reduce harm, improve traceability and preserve competition.
Fraud prevention does not require indiscriminate surveillance. Controls should match risk and provide clear appeal routes.
Read the privacy proposal →Accessible licences, technical supervision and predictable sanctions offer more protection than hard-to-enforce bans.
Compare policy models →Auditable game rules, clear information and reliable records help detect abuse without claiming technology removes every risk.
Review the methodology →Regional observatory
Editorial profiles grounded in official rules and regulator pages. We separate general gambling law from the specific status of crypto payments.
Federal framework in transition
A September 2026 provisional measure changed the fixed-odds regime. The profile explains the change and its limits.
View the sourced framework →Public-policy test
This comparison is outcome-based: it looks at effects on users, regulators and competition.
How we work
Each profile separates fact, interpretation and recommendation. Estimates are never presented as official data.
We prioritise laws, regulations, authorities and operator registers.
Profiles show when they were reviewed and what may change.
We distinguish online betting, crypto assets, payments and tax duties.
Support the project
Copy this code and paste it into your page to link to Crypto Freedom Alliance.