Where Gofaizen & Sherle scores highest
G&S wins this index on depth. It runs the purest crypto-licensing practice reviewed — crypto, tokenisation and iGaming, with no general-corporate work and no owned licensed entities — and staffs it with team members who previously worked inside the Estonian and Lithuanian regulators. For an application that turns on how a supervisor actually reads a file, that ex-regulator bench is a real, specific advantage.
The grant record backs it up: 130-plus licences, weighted toward strict Estonian and Lithuanian regimes rather than easy jurisdictions.
Where Gofaizen & Sherle is weaker
It finishes second by a single point, and the reason is transparency and breadth. Pricing is quote-on-engagement rather than published, and banking is referred out rather than handled in-house. The volume leader documents more clients and publishes more verified social proof. If your decision rests on visible client evidence and the widest coverage, that gap matters; if it rests on regulatory precision, it does not.
Gofaizen & Sherle by jurisdiction
Estonia and Lithuania are the core: the team leads CASP authorisation and MiCA-transition filings with Finantsinspektsioon and the Bank of Lithuania, drawing on ex-regulator experience. In Poland, it handles VASP-to-CASP transition work with the KNF for CEE-facing businesses.