Crypto legal opinions, co-signed and verifiable

What a legal opinion actually is

A legal opinion is not a yes-or-no. It says what was reviewed, what was assumed, what question it answers, and who may rely on it. A serious opinion is scoped ("does this activity require a VASP licence under the VARA framework"), dated (it speaks as of its date), and bounded (tax and employment excluded, say). The reliance clause is the entire value: an opinion you cannot rely on is decoration.

Who asks for one

• Exchanges, before listing a token, usually asking whether it is a security in named jurisdictions.
• Banks and payment partners, before opening accounts for a crypto business.
• Counterparties and integration partners, before touching your contracts or your assets.
• Investors, during diligence, to check that the structure holds where the users are.

The problem with opinions today

The opinion that took months and real money arrives as a PDF. The exchange that asked for it cannot verify the signature, cannot check whether it was revoked, and cannot tell whether the version in the data room is the version that was signed. So every counterparty re-verifies by email, or worse, accepts it on faith.

What LEXI changes

On LEXI, the opinion is produced the way it already should be: an engine, in development on a proprietary corpus of real regulatory work, prepares the first pass as work product, and a licensed professional runs their own diligence and co-signs. Then the part that is new: the signed opinion is committed on Base as a credential. Scope and opinion text are bound by hash, the status is live, and the named reliers can verify all of it in one call. The professional's stake and the committee-adjudicated dispute path are described on the legal professionals page.

Getting an opinion for your protocol

V0 opens with VARA in Dubai, then the India rail in V1. If you need coverage on the India-UAE-US corridor, write in with what you are building and which jurisdictions matter to you.