The Budhihal Base Foundation considered multiple jurisdictions before selecting Singapore CLG for issuance.

1. Singapore (Chosen Jurisdiction)

• Entity: Company Limited by Guarantee (CLG).
• Regulatory stance: MAS does not regulate NFTs as collectibles/service vouchers, unless they are investment contracts or payment tokens.
• Compliance: Straightforward — KYC/AML at mint via third-party providers; fiat ramps handled by regulated PSPs (Transak, Moonpay).
• Pros: Regulatory clarity, strong global reputation, proximity to India, non-profit foundation optics.
• Cons: Banking can still be conservative; setup cost higher than US.

2. Dubai (VARA)

• Entity: Not-for-profit or LLC licensed by VARA.
• Regulatory stance: All virtual asset issuance/distribution requires a VARA license. NFTs with utility are within scope.
• Compliance: Whitepaper filing, annual audits, ongoing reporting, custodianship.
• Pros: High credibility, VARA licensing seen as gold-standard; gateway to MENA investors.
• Cons: Heavy compliance, high costs, annual filings burden.

3. Delaware (USA)

• Entity: LLC or Public Benefit Corporation (PBC).
• Regulatory stance: NFTs as collectibles generally unregulated, but SEC risk if marketed as investments.
• Compliance: Must comply with OFAC sanctions; KYC advisable at mint.