Disclosure: This article does not represent investment advice. The content and materials featured on this page are for educational purposes only.
MiCA enforcement reshapes EU crypto as ESMA register reveals 204 authorized CASPs and leading jurisdictions emerge.
Summary
- MiCA regulation now standardizes EU crypto licensing, with ESMA’s register tracking 204 authorized CASPs and their services.
- Crypto firms are assessed on real authorization data, revealing which EU jurisdictions successfully issue MiCA licenses.
- MiCA CASP licensing typically costs €200K–€475K in the first year and takes 6–9 months, with application quality as the main approval driver.
The transitional period is closing and the guessing is over. With MiCA — the EU’s single rulebook for crypto-asset services — now in force, the ESMA Interim MiCA Register works as a live scoreboard of where crypto businesses are actually incorporating.
Instead of trusting marketing claims about which jurisdiction is “crypto-friendly,” founders can read the register directly: who got authorized, for which services, and how far their EU passport reaches. Drawing on the current snapshot of 204 authorized CASPs, here is the map as it stands — four EU jurisdictions worth attention, and the two credible non-EU alternatives.
The state of play: One license, twenty-seven markets
MiCA’s core promise is the entire reason the EU dominates this conversation: a single CASP authorization, granted by one national competent authority (NCA), passports across all 27 Member States. Authorize once, notify the rest, operate everywhere. No non-EU regime offers a comparable single-application route into a market this large — and founders are responding. Of the 204 CASPs on the register, 51 were authorized in 2026 alone (about a quarter, in under five months), and 91 firms now passport into 27 or more markets. Home-state choice is heavily concentrated:
| Home Member State | Authorised CASPs | Profile |
| Germany (BaFin) | 55 | Largest market |
| Netherlands (AFM) | 25 | Exchange-heavy |
| France (AMF) | 17 | Institutional |
| Malta (MFSA) | 13 | Exchange magnet |
| Cyprus (CySEC) | 12 | Consumer apps |
| Ireland (CBI) | 12 | Payments / scale |
| Czech Republic (CNB) | 7 | Fast riser |
| Luxembourg (CSSF) | 7 | Institutional |
| Lithuania (LB) | 6 | Startup default |
| Estonia (EFSA) | 1 | Sharp reversal |
Source: ESMA Interim MiCA Register, live snapshot as of 22 May 2026 (204 CASPs total).
Germany leads on count, but volume isn’t fit. BaFin is thorough, German-language, and slow — sensible for an institution, rarely the right first move for a lean startup. The instructive story is in the smaller jurisdictions, where the trade-offs between speed, substance, and credibility are sharpest.
The four EU jurisdictions worth a founder’s attention
Malta — The exchange magnet
Malta is where the recognizable crypto-native exchanges went. The MFSA has authorized OKX, Crypto.com, Gemini, Gate, Blockchain.com and BVNK among 13 CASPs, plus a disproportionate share of full trading-platform (Class 3) authorizations. Its edge is institutional memory: it regulated crypto years before MiCA, so the MFSA understands exchange models and banking is acclimatized to crypto clients. The trade-off is real substance expectations.
Best for: funded exchanges that want to sit alongside the majors.
Lithuania — The startup default
Lithuania remains the pragmatic first choice for startups. The Bank of Lithuania accepts English, runs one of the faster EU processes (3–5 months), and offers a cost-effective base with a deep fintech ecosystem; authorized CASPs include Robinhood, CoinGate and Nuvei (the license holder behind Simplex). Its modest MiCA count understates its appetite — most of its large VASP-era base is mid-conversion to full CASP status.
Best for: first-time founders who want speed, English, and a regulator that has seen the model.
Estonia — The cautionary reversal
Estonia is the register’s biggest surprise. Once the undisputed capital of EU crypto licensing, it now shows just one MiCA-authorized CASP. An old VASP license doesn’t convert automatically into CASP authorization — firms must requalify in full — and the EFSA pairs that with strict substance enforcement. The lesson generalizes: a historically light-touch jurisdiction is not an easy MiCA jurisdiction, and substance — real local management — is now the binding constraint everywhere.
Best for: firms prepared to build genuine substance, not a mailbox.
Czech Republic — The fast riser
The Czech Republic shows how fast the map still moves: zero MiCA CASPs in February, seven today — ahead of Lithuania on count. The CNB is pragmatic, the process quick and affordable, English accepted, and Prague helps with hiring. The register is dominated by local rather than global brands, making it a low-friction base rather than a prestige address.
Best for: cost-conscious founders who value a central EU location and an early-mover window.
At a glance
| Jurisdiction | Typical SLA | Language | Substance | Best fit |
| Malta | 6–10 mo | English | High | Funded exchanges |
| Lithuania | 3–5 mo | English | Moderate | Startups, fast launch |
| Estonia | 4–8 mo | English | High | Substance-ready firms |
| Czech Rep. | 4–6 mo | English | Moderate | Cost-conscious, CE base |
Estimates reflect typical conditions and vary by service scope and applicant readiness.
When the EU isn’t the answer: Dubai and Singapore
MiCA’s passport is decisive when customers are European. When they’re not, paying for 27-market access that won’t be used — and meeting EU substance and capital rules — can be the wrong trade. Two non-EU hubs sit at opposite ends of the openness spectrum.
Dubai (VARA) — The open door
VARA was the world’s first regulator dedicated solely to virtual assets and runs the most explicitly welcoming major regime. It licenses on an activity basis (exchange, broker-dealer, custody, lending, advisory, transfer/settlement), with its Rulebook updated to v2.0 in mid-2025; the full process runs about 4–7 months. Pull factors: 100% foreign ownership, no personal income tax (with free-zone corporate-tax advantages), and a government treating digital assets as a national strategy. The catch — Dubai gives you the UAE and a global address, not an EU passport, and VARA covers the mainland and free zones but not the DIFC (regulated by the DFSA).
Best for: global or MENA-focused firms wanting speed and tax efficiency.
Singapore (MAS) — The prestige filter
Singapore is the opposite: top-tier reputation, deliberately rationed. Crypto is regulated on an activity basis under the Payment Services Act (Standard vs Major Payment Institution licenses). MAS has issued only a few dozen DPT licenses. Crucially, the DTSP regime under the FSMA (from 30 June 2025) now captures Singapore entities serving only overseas customers — and MAS has said plainly the bar is high and it will generally not license them; operating without a license risks penalties up to SGD 250,000 and/or three years’ imprisonment. A poor fit for a quick offshore setup; excellent for a substantive Asia-Pacific operation.
Best for: well-capitalized firms with a genuine APAC presence.
A simple way to choose
- Where customers are? EU-facing → MiCA, almost always. Global/MENA → Dubai. APAC with substance → Singapore.
- What services? Custody/exchange (Class 2, €125k) and trading platforms (Class 3, €150k) carry the heaviest load; advisory and order-routing (Class 1, €50k) are lighter.
- How much substance can be built? Every credible regime now demands real local management. If you can’t staff it, Estonia-style rejections await.
- Speed vs prestige? Lithuania and Czechia optimize for speed and cost; Malta, Luxembourg, and Singapore for standing.
Cost, timeline, and getting it right
Budget honestly: a MiCA CASP typically costs €200,000–€475,000 in year one (capital, incorporation, legal, MLRO, office, IT/security, NCA fees), on a realistic 6–9 month timeline for exchange-plus-custody scope. The biggest lever on both is application quality — incomplete dossiers, generic AML policies and template IT-security frameworks are the top causes of stalled or rejected applications, and a rejection costs three to six months.
The register’s clearest signal is that winning jurisdictions reward preparation, not optimism. Matching the right home state to your model, building substance from day one, and filing a regulator-ready package is what separates a four-month approval from a year of back-and-forth. This is where a specialized crypto licensing consultancy earns its fee — turning the live register into a jurisdiction and application strategy that fits, across EU and non-EU routes.
To explore the options, visit the official website.
Disclosure: This content is provided by a third party. Neither crypto.news nor the author of this article endorses any product mentioned on this page. Users should conduct their own research before taking any action related to the company.
No Comment! Be the first one.