December in Poland and at our law firm was marked by the presidential veto of the Crypto Assets Market Act. MiCA was supposed to be for the crypto-asset market what PSD2 was for payments – a regulatory framework providing predictability, supervision, and the possibility of developing crypto-asset-based services throughout the European Union. This is the case in many Member States, but in Poland it has become a symbol of regulatory deadlock.

Companies entered in the virtual currency register face uncertainty about their future and the possibility of providing services in Poland. Currently, their owners cannot apply for a crypto-asset service provider license. Although the MiCA regulation is in force, there is no designated supervisory authority or rules for submitting and processing applications. MiCA leaves this regulatory area to be regulated by member states through legislation, which is still lacking in our domestic market.

Foreign EU entities already provide services in Poland as crypto-asset service providers, based on licenses obtained in other countries, while Polish companies do not even have the possibility to apply.

Furthermore, from July 1, 2026, already registered virtual currency providers (VASPs) will lose the ability to provide services. The lack of legislation today is a real barrier for Polish entrepreneurs and an increasingly clear competitive advantage for other jurisdictions.

Let us recall what MiCA is

MiCA (Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation) is an EU regulation establishing a uniform legal framework for the crypto-asset market in the European Union. Its aim is to enable the development of innovative crypto services in a predictable regulatory environment.

MiCA introduces uniform organizational, capital, and compliance requirements for crypto service providers, as well as uniform rules for the issuance and offering of crypto assets (including asset-backed tokens and electronic money tokens).

Another important mechanism introduced by MiCA is the possibility of obtaining a passport to provide services throughout the EU on the basis of a license issued in one Member State. From the perspective of entrepreneurs, MiCA was supposed to end the period of regulatory uncertainty surrounding virtual currency services and replace fragmented national solutions with a coherent system. It is not without reason that MiCA is said to standardize and raise the compliance framework for crypto-asset service providers.

The entry of crypto-asset service providers into the MiCA regime strengthens the credibility of these entities not only vis-à-vis their customers, but above all vis-à-vis supervisory authorities, for whom the CASP license is a benchmark in assessing regulatory and compliance risk . However, the condition for this system to work is the smooth implementation of MiCA at the member state level.

MiCA is in force, so why do we need a law?

The crypto-asset services market understands that MiCA, as an EU regulation, applies directly. At the same time, its effective functioning requires action on the part of Member States: the designation of a supervisory authority, a CASP licensing procedure, and sanctioning and supervisory rules, as was the case with the implementation of the GDPR or DORA.

However, the Crypto-Asset Market Act was vetoed by the president. There is ongoing public debate as to whether the veto was an objection to the development of the crypto-asset market in Poland (rather unlikely) or (more likely) a reaction to the way this market is being shaped in Poland.

The risk of overregulation (MiCA gold-plating), the overly extensive nature of the act (over 100 pages compared to a dozen or so in other EU countries), high supervisory fees, and far-reaching administrative powers, including the ability to block websites, are the president’s main arguments against signing the act in its current form.

However, the veto did not solve the problem of MiCA’s non-implementation in Poland. According to market practitioners and managers of institutions providing crypto-asset services, the current legal situation generates significant regulatory uncertainty, hinders relations with banks, and increases the costs of doing business.

At the same time, other EU jurisdictions, including France, Lithuania, Germany, and the Czech Republic, are implementing MiCA in an operational manner. There, it is possible to apply for a CASP license, engage in dialogue with the supervisory authority, and plan development based on uniform EU rules. Although only one CASP application has been approved in Lithuania, the licensing path is open to entities in this market, and the lack of approvals is due to the fact that the Bank of Lithuania has been literally “swamped” with applications.

Today, more and more Polish companies are choosing another member state as the place to obtain their license and then operate in Poland as a foreign CASP. This is in line with EU law, but for Poland it means an outflow of taxes, jobs, and decision-making centers. Specialized and highly regarded Polish specialists in AML and compliance are usually unable to hold positions in foreign institutions.

Consequences of the lack of an implementing law

The lack of MiCA implementation at the national level also means weaker consumer protection. The Polish Financial Supervision Authority (KNF) does not currently have a full range of tools provided for in MiCA for CASPs, such as dedicated administrative sanctions or intervention measures.

At the same time, Polish consumers use the services of foreign platforms, often without local support and beyond the real reach of national supervision. The lack of legislation does not increase protection, but rather dilutes it.

What next for Polish virtual currency service providers?

Currently, entities that are today entered in the register of virtual currency providers will have to cease operations on June 30, 2026. In addition, if they do not obtain CASP status within the prescribed period, they will be required to prepare and implement a wind-down plan. Such a plan includes, in particular, rules for terminating the provision of services to customers and procedures for transferring customer assets to other service providers.

From a regulatory practice perspective, this means that providers must prepare very detailed plans, including in the following areas:

• the structure of their client portfolio (number of clients, value and type of assets in custody);
• contractual provisions regarding contract termination and notification deadlines;
• the adopted offboarding model – whether it involves simple termination of contracts or transfer of customer portfolios to another entity.

The longer the transition period lasts, the more costly and operationally difficult it may be to make subsequent adjustments, especially in terms of orderly closure of operations or customer migration.

In practice, the lack of a CASP license, as I mentioned above, also has a very specific effect: relations with banks. Already today, many financial institutions approach the crypto asset industry with great caution, assigning them high-risk client status and applying enhanced financial security measures. The lack of a clear regulatory status under the MiCA regime means higher compliance risk for banks. The result is informal “shadow banning” – refusal to open accounts, termination of contracts, and limited cooperation. This is another factor pushing Polish companies abroad.

Conclusions for the future

The new law must be created anyway. MiCA is not an option – it is an obligation. However, it is crucial to keep gold-plating to a minimum, ensure a realistic and fast CASP licensing procedure in Poland, unblock the entry of new entities to the Polish market, and restore regulatory predictability.

Each additional month of delay means more business decisions being made outside Poland.