Poland’s MiCA Deadlock Leaves 2,000 Crypto Firms Without Domestic Licensing Route

MakeCryippreferred on

Poland has entered the European Union’s post-MiCA era in an unusual position: its crypto companies are now subject to the bloc’s new regulatory framework, but they still cannot obtain the license required from their own country’s regulator.

The impasse stems from President Karol Nawrocki’s repeated refusal to sign legislation implementing the EU’s Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) framework into Polish law. His latest veto has left the Polish Financial Supervision Authority (KNF) without legal authority to process applications from crypto-asset service providers, even as the EU’s transitional period has ended.

That legislative gap makes Poland the only EU member state without an operational domestic MiCA licensing framework. While MiCA itself applies directly across the European Union, each country must designate a national authority responsible for supervising firms and issuing licenses. Poland has yet to complete that final step.

Domestic firms face a regulatory disadvantage

For many Polish crypto businesses, the problem is no longer about future regulation but about market access. Under MiCA, firms need authorization from an EU regulator to continue providing regulated crypto services across the bloc. Companies established in Poland cannot currently obtain that authorization at home because the country’s licensing process does not legally exist, a concern that has gained urgency as Binance suspends services after MiCA deadline and other firms adjust their European operations to comply with the new rules.

Industry estimates suggest Poland has around 2,000 registered virtual asset service providers. Although some larger companies have already secured licenses in other European jurisdictions, most smaller operators have not.

The practical consequences include:

• No domestic authority can currently issue MiCA licenses.
• Companies seeking authorization must relocate or apply through another EU jurisdiction.
• Smaller firms face higher compliance costs than competitors in other member states.
• Businesses unable to obtain authorization risk suspending regulated activities as national transition periods expire.

Political dispute extends beyond MiCA

The current standoff reflects a broader disagreement over how Poland should regulate digital assets rather than opposition to crypto regulation itself. President Nawrocki has said he supports consumer protection and market oversight but argues the legislation grants excessive powers to regulators. Among his objections are provisions allowing authorities to block company websites, freeze assets during investigations and introduce supervisory powers that, in his view, exceed MiCA’s minimum requirements.

The government has argued that implementing MiCA without further delay is necessary to bring Poland into line with the rest of the European Union and provide legal certainty for the market. With neither side backing down, the dispute has evolved from a regulatory debate into a legislative stalemate.

Businesses look beyond Poland

The absence of a domestic licensing framework does not prevent Polish companies from operating indefinitely, but it changes where they must seek regulatory approval. Because MiCA licenses are passportable across the European Economic Area, firms can establish themselves in another member state, obtain authorization there and continue serving customers across the EU.

That flexibility reduces the immediate risk of market disruption but creates a longer-term concern for Poland’s digital asset sector. Companies that shift licensing, staff or headquarters abroad may have little incentive to return once the domestic framework is eventually introduced. For startups, the additional legal, administrative and compliance costs could prove especially difficult to absorb, potentially accelerating consolidation in Poland’s crypto market.

Attention turns to Parliament

The veto does not end Poland’s MiCA implementation process, but it delays it at a time when other EU jurisdictions have already begun licensing crypto service providers and as the MiCA license deadline places increasing pressure on firms to secure authorization. Parliament can attempt to revise the legislation or pursue another version capable of securing presidential approval. Until that happens, the KNF cannot begin accepting applications, leaving Polish firms dependent on regulators in other European countries if they want access to the EU’s single crypto market.

The longer the legislative deadlock continues, the greater the possibility that Poland’s crypto licensing business, investment activity and regulatory expertise migrate elsewhere in Europe rather than developing domestically.