MiCA's Passport Problem: Europe's Crypto Single Market Is Fracturing Before It Begins

Reader Navigation Guide

Jump to sections relevant to your role

Reader Role	Relevant Sections
Legal & Compliance	Click to view sections Criminal Liability Fragmentation - Italy's 4-year terms, Poland's local requirements The Passport Promise - Article 59 mechanism vs reality Local Substance Requirements - Director residency, physical presence rules
Corporate Treasury & Finance	Click to view sections Compliance Cost Reality - EUR 200-700K annual for pan-EU operation Strategic Pathways - Hub-and-spoke vs local entity approaches Transition Period Arbitrage - Grandfathering provisions until July 2026
Banking & Risk Management	Click to view sections Criminal Liability Exposure - Cross-border prosecution risks AML Enforcement Divergence - National FIU discretion Stablecoin Issuer Requirements - Reserve and custody standards
Policy & Regulatory Analysis	Click to view sections Single Market Theory - MiCA's design vs implementation Enforcement Matrix - 27 approaches to one regulation Three Scenarios Forward - Fortress Europe, ESMA pushback, UK alternative
Fintech & Infrastructure	Click to view sections Licensing Strategy - Jurisdiction selection, hub-and-spoke models Non-EU Operators - VARA, MAS, SFC license holders and the "gold-plated cage" Build vs License - Cost analysis for market entry

This navigation framework is exclusive to MCMS members. Share this article to provide colleagues with the same analytical depth.

MiCAAn EU regulatory framework standardizing crypto rules for issuers and service providers was supposed to end the chaos. One regulation, 27 countries, a single passport that lets crypto firms operate across the EU without re-licensing in each jurisdiction. The theory was elegant: obtain authorization in Malta, serve customers in Germany. Get licensed in Ireland, expand to France. The single market for crypto services, finally realized.

That was the promise. Here's what actually happened.

The Passport Promise

Article 59 of MiCAAn EU regulatory framework standardizing crypto rules for issuers and service providers establishes the passport mechanism. A Crypto-Asset Service ProviderEntity providing crypto services under EU MiCA requiring authorization and regulatory compliance (CASP) authorized in one member state can provide services throughout the EU by notifying the host state's regulator. No new license required. No duplicate capital requirements. Just paperwork and market access.

This mirrors how banking and investment services work under MiFID IIEU directive governing financial markets and investment services. A German bank can serve French customers. A Dutch investment firm can operate in Spain. The framework has functioned for decades. MiCAAn EU regulatory framework standardizing crypto rules for issuers and service providers promised to extend it to crypto.

“

"One license, 27 markets, 450 million potential customers. MiCAAn EU regulatory framework standardizing crypto rules for issuers and service providers's passport was designed to create Europe's crypto single market. It's creating 27 different enforcement regimes instead."

The passport works on paper. In practice, national competent authorities retain discretion over:

• Local enforcement intensity
• AMLRegulatory framework requiring financial institutions to detect and prevent money laundering, terrorist financing, and other illicit financial activities supervision standards
• Consumer protection interpretation
• Criminal sanctions for violations

ESMAEU agency coordinating securities regulation and supervising credit rating agencies and trade repositories and EBAEU agency supervising banking and stablecoin regulation across member states issue binding technical standards. They cannot override national criminal law. They cannot mandate identical enforcement approaches. They cannot prevent Italy from imposing prison terms while Malta offers streamlined approvals.

Criminal Liability: Italy's Implementation

Italy enacted Legislative Decree 129/2024 on September 14, 2024, implementing MiCAAn EU regulatory framework standardizing crypto rules for issuers and service providers with criminal penalties for operating crypto services without proper authorization:

• 6 months to 4 years imprisonment for providing unauthorized CASPEntity providing crypto services under EU MiCA requiring authorization and regulatory compliance services
• Fines and potential asset confiscation

Italy went beyond MiCAAn EU regulatory framework standardizing crypto rules for issuers and service providers's minimum requirements, which mandate "effective, proportionate and dissuasive" administrative sanctions but do not require criminal penalties. This represents a policy choice treating unlicensed crypto services similarly to unlicensed financial services.

What This Means for Passporting

Important clarification: Firms with full MiCAAn EU regulatory framework standardizing crypto rules for issuers and service providers authorization operating under valid passport rights should not face criminal exposure in Italy for properly authorized services. The criminal penalties apply to firms operating without authorization.

However, questions remain about edge cases: services that may fall outside the scope of a firm's MiCAAn EU regulatory framework standardizing crypto rules for issuers and service providers authorization, or disputes about whether specific activities require additional authorization. Cross-border enforcement creates jurisdictional questions that may require ESMAEU agency coordinating securities regulation and supervising credit rating agencies and trade repositories coordination to resolve.

The passport grants market access for authorized services. Firms should ensure their activities fall clearly within their authorization scope.

Local Substance Requirements: Where They Apply

Important context: MiCAAn EU regulatory framework standardizing crypto rules for issuers and service providers's draft regulation explicitly states that CASPsEntity providing crypto services under EU MiCA requiring authorization and regulatory compliance "cannot be required to have a physical presence" in host Member States for passportingRight to offer crypto services across EU member states with home state authorization. However, some member states interpret requirements for firms conducting substantial local business:

Poland

The Polish Financial Supervision Authority (KNF) requires:

• At least one management board member resident in Poland
• Local AML complianceRegulatory framework requiring financial institutions to detect and prevent money laundering, terrorist financing, and other illicit financial activities officer presence
• Physical operational presence for firms serving Polish customers substantially

These requirements apply even to passported firms targeting the Polish market.

Germany

BaFin interprets management suitability requirements to require:

• German-resident directors for firms conducting significant German business
• Enhanced local governance for crypto custodyService for securely storing and managing cryptocurrency assets providers
• Substance demonstration beyond mere passport notification

France

AMF requires:

• "Effective direction" from France for firms targeting French customers substantially
• Enhanced PSAN (Digital Asset Service Provider) registration with local operational presence
• French-resident responsible persons for consumer-facing services

Spain

CNMV imposes:

• Advertising restrictions requiring local compliance oversight
• Spanish-resident responsible persons for consumer-facing services
• Enhanced local substance for marketing activity

Realistic Cost Estimates

Based on industry data, annual compliance costs for pan-European CASPEntity providing crypto services under EU MiCA requiring authorization and regulatory compliance operation are estimated at EUR 200,000-700,000, not the EUR 2-5 million sometimes claimed. Key cost components:

Licensing fees (one-time): EUR 4,500-100,000 depending on jurisdiction. The EUR 150,000 figure often cited represents minimum capital requirements for Class 3 CASPsEntity providing crypto services under EU MiCA requiring authorization and regulatory compliance, not licensing fees.

Transition Period Chaos

MiCAAn EU regulatory framework standardizing crypto rules for issuers and service providers Article 143 creates an 18-month transition window running until July 1, 2026. Firms authorized under national regimes before December 30, 2024, may continue operating until their MiCA application is granted or refused.

This sounds reasonable. In practice, it creates a two-speed market.

The Estonia Problem

Estonia registered over 500 virtual assetFATF term for digital value representation tradable or transferable electronically service providers before tightening standards in 2022. Many remain authorized. Under Article 143, they can continue operating domestically until July 2026 - but they cannot passport across the EU. Only MiCAAn EU regulatory framework standardizing crypto rules for issuers and service providers-authorized firms gain full passport rights.

This creates a two-tier market. Firms seeking pan-EU access must obtain full MiCAAn EU regulatory framework standardizing crypto rules for issuers and service providers authorization, regardless of their pre-existing national licenses. A firm established in Estonia in 2021 can serve Estonian customers during transition, but must obtain MiCA authorization to expand elsewhere.

The Ireland Vacuum

Central Bank of Ireland had not issued any CASPEntity providing crypto services under EU MiCA requiring authorization and regulatory compliance authorizations by December 2024. Zero. Ireland's crypto market receives passported services from permissive jurisdictions while domestic firms navigate an approval bottleneck.

Regulator's Dilemma

Host state regulators face an impossible choice:

1. Challenge passport notifications from permissively-licensed jurisdictions - creating trade friction and undermining MiCAAn EU regulatory framework standardizing crypto rules for issuers and service providers's single market objective
2. Accept competitive disadvantage for locally-authorized firms - undermining domestic compliance investment and creating regulatory arbitrageBuying and selling an asset across different platforms to profit from price differences incentives

Neither option serves the regulation's stated purpose.

The Online Gaming Parallel

This pattern is not new. The EU's online gaming sector followed an identical trajectory in the 2000s-2010s. Despite theoretical service freedom under Article 56 TFEU, member states invoked "public order" and addiction prevention to erect national barriers. Poland's 2017 Gambling Act introduced ISP-level domain blocking - the same mechanism now being applied to crypto. Malta gaming licenses became operationally useless for serving Polish users.

The pattern is unmistakable. Just as online gaming evolved from theoretical passportingRight to offer crypto services across EU member states with home state authorization to practical national barriers, MiCAAn EU regulatory framework standardizing crypto rules for issuers and service providers is following the same trajectory - faster.

AML Enforcement Divergence

MiCAAn EU regulatory framework standardizing crypto rules for issuers and service providers establishes minimum AMLRegulatory framework requiring financial institutions to detect and prevent money laundering, terrorist financing, and other illicit financial activities requirements. National Financial Intelligence Units retain full authority over:

• Transaction monitoringAutomated surveillance of wallet activity for AML red flags and sanctions risks thresholds
• Suspicious activity reporting standards
• Customer due diligenceProcess of verifying customer identity and assessing risk intensity
• Enforcement priorities and resources

A passported CASPEntity providing crypto services under EU MiCA requiring authorization and regulatory compliance faces different AMLRegulatory framework requiring financial institutions to detect and prevent money laundering, terrorist financing, and other illicit financial activities expectations in each jurisdiction served. The German FIU's interpretation differs from France's Tracfin, which differs from Italy's UIF. Compliance systems must accommodate 27 variations - or risk enforcement action in any jurisdiction that finds the firm's approach inadequate.

Stablecoin Issuer Complications

For stablecoinA cryptocurrency pegged to a stable asset, such as USD or gold issuers, fragmentation compounds. Asset-referenced tokens and e-money tokens face:

• EBAEU agency supervising banking and stablecoin regulation across member states direct supervision for "significant" tokens
• National competent authority oversight for others
• Reserve custody requirements varying by member state interpretation
• Banking relationship challenges that differ across the EU

Circle's USDCA fully-reserved stablecoin pegged 1:1 to the US Dollar, issued by Circle and backed by regulated financial institutions - authorized in France - can theoretically passport across the EU. In practice, local banking relationships, custody arrangements, and redemption infrastructure require market-by-market negotiation.

Strategic Pathways Through Fragmentation

Given the landscape, three approaches emerge:

Hub-and-Spoke Licensing

Obtain primary authorization in a business-friendly jurisdiction (Malta, Ireland, Lithuania). Passport to high-value markets selectively. Avoid direct consumer services in criminal-penalty jurisdictions. Accept that some markets remain effectively closed.

Advantages: Lower compliance costs, regulatory certainty in home jurisdiction, flexibility to expand incrementally.

Disadvantages: Limited market access, potential host-state challenges to passport scope, concentration risk in home jurisdiction.

Local Entity Proliferation

Establish subsidiaries in major markets (Germany, France, Italy, Spain). Obtain separate authorization in each jurisdiction. Accept regulatory duplication cost for enforcement certainty.

Advantages: Full market access, clear local accountability, reduced cross-border enforcement risk.

Disadvantages: EUR 1-2 million annual compliance cost across multiple entities, duplicative capital requirements, operational complexity.

B2B Wholesale Focus

Avoid retail consumer exposure entirely. Provide infrastructure services to locally-authorized entities. Eliminate passport friction by never directly serving end consumers.

Advantages: Reduced regulatory surface area, simpler compliance, clearer liability boundaries.

Disadvantages: Limited addressable market, dependence on local partners, margin compression in competitive segments.

The Enforcement Matrix

MiCAAn EU regulatory framework standardizing crypto rules for issuers and service providers created one regulation. National implementation created this:

What This Means for Non-EU Licensed Operators

For firms holding VARA (Dubai), MAS (Singapore), or SFC (Hong Kong) licenses, the fragmentation creates what might be called a "gold-plated cage." Unlike previous financial regulations such as MiFID IIEU directive governing financial markets and investment services, MiCAAn EU regulatory framework standardizing crypto rules for issuers and service providers contains no equivalence regime for third countries. A VARA license, however rigorous, provides zero legal access to Europe. To operate in the EU, a Dubai-licensed exchangeA platform where users can buy, sell, or trade cryptocurrencies cannot extend its existing authorization - it must incorporate a fully capitalized EU subsidiary and apply for a fresh MiCA licenseRegulatory authorization required to provide crypto asset services in the EU under MiCA.

Worse, holding a sophisticated foreign license may increase liability rather than reduce it. Italian prosecutors applying the "competent professional" doctrine view VARA or MAS licensees not as ignorant startups but as sophisticated institutions that knowingly bypassed local rules. The six-month to four-year prison sentence for unauthorized activity applies regardless of what license you holdA misspelling of 'hold,' used to mean holding onto cryptocurrency for long-term gains in Dubai.

Reverse Solicitation: The Loophole That Closed

The reverse solicitation loophole - historically used by foreign firms to serve EU clients who approached them first - has been systematically closed. ESMAEU agency coordinating securities regulation and supervising credit rating agencies and trade repositories's 2025 guidelines declare that any digital footprint, including a website in an EU language, an APIConnective tissue linking banks, fintechs, AI systems call from an EU IP address, or a referral code used by EU residents, constitutes illegal solicitation. A VARA-licensed firm can no longer maintain a global website open to all visitors. Active IP geofencing of EU users has become a compliance requirement.

Three Scenarios Forward

Scenario One: Fortress Europe Hardens

Italy and Poland's approaches spread. More member states layer criminal penalties onto MiCAAn EU regulatory framework standardizing crypto rules for issuers and service providers's administrative framework. Domain blocking becomes standard. The EU crypto market splits into "premium" operators licensed everywhere and "geofenced" operators avoiding strict jurisdictions. LiquidityThe ease with which an asset can be bought or sold without affecting its price fragments. EU versions of global platforms offer fewer assets than their international counterparts. European users increasingly use VPNs to access global platforms - which those platforms must now actively police.

Scenario Two: ESMA Pushes Back

The European Securities and Markets AuthorityEU agency coordinating securities regulation and supervising credit rating agencies and trade repositories finds mechanisms to constrain national divergence. ECJ cases challenge criminal penalties as disproportionate barriers to single market freedoms. Member states are forced to recognize each other's authorizations without additional friction. This scenario requires political will that is not currently visible.

Scenario Three: The UK Emerges as Alternative

London's principles-based approach under FSMA attracts firms exhausted by 27-state fragmentation. The UK becomes the dominant Western crypto hub by default, not because its regulation is lighter, but because it is singular. EU competitiveness concerns eventually force Brussels to address implementation divergence - but not before significant market share migrates.

What Happens Next

ESMAEU agency coordinating securities regulation and supervising credit rating agencies and trade repositories is aware of the fragmentation. The authority can issue guidance, coordinate enforcement approaches, and escalate concerns to the European Commission. It cannot force Italy to repeal criminal penalties. It cannot require Poland to drop local director requirements.

The Commission could propose amendments. Any change requires European Parliament and Council approval - a multi-year process that won't address immediate transition-period challenges.

Market participants face a choice: wait for harmonization that may never come, or build compliance infrastructure for 27 different realities.

The Winners

• Legal and compliance advisory firms billing EUR 500-1,000 per hour for jurisdiction-specific guidance
• Malta and Ireland attracting licensing applications from firms seeking business-friendly home jurisdictions
• B2B infrastructure providers avoiding retail exposure and passport friction entirely

The Losers

• The theoretical single market for crypto services, where a German consumer can more easily access US-based Coinbase than a Lithuanian-authorized competitor facing German substance requirements
• Mid-sized CASPsEntity providing crypto services under EU MiCA requiring authorization and regulatory compliance lacking resources for 27-jurisdiction compliance but too large to focus on single markets
• Consumers facing reduced competition as compliance costs eliminate smaller market participants

The Bottom Line

MiCAAn EU regulatory framework standardizing crypto rules for issuers and service providers created a framework for the crypto single market. National implementation is dismantling it before the framework reaches full maturity. The passport exists on paper. In practice, operating across the EU requires navigating criminal liability exposure, local substance requirements, grandfathering inconsistencies, and AMLRegulatory framework requiring financial institutions to detect and prevent money laundering, terrorist financing, and other illicit financial activities enforcement discretion that varies by member state.

The regulation promised clarity. It delivered complexity with a harmonized vocabulary.

Firms entering European crypto markets should budget accordingly - not for one license, but for 27 different compliance frameworks wearing the same regulatory label.

Up Next: How stablecoinA cryptocurrency pegged to a stable asset, such as USD or gold issuers are navigating MiCAAn EU regulatory framework standardizing crypto rules for issuers and service providers's reserve requirements - and why Circle's USDCA fully-reserved stablecoin pegged 1:1 to the US Dollar, issued by Circle and backed by regulated financial institutions authorization in France creates more questions than it answers.