MiCA register shows late crypto licence rush before EU deadline

ambcryptoPublished on 2026-07-03Last updated on 2026-07-03

Abstract

European regulators authorized dozens of crypto firms in the final days before the EU's MiCA regulation transition period ended. An analysis of ESMA's register shows 36 crypto-asset service provider (CASP) authorizations were issued between June 23 and July 1, with 13 approvals on June 30 alone. This highlights a late licensing rush to comply with the new rules. In total, the register lists 283 authorized CASP records. Germany leads with 59 authorized CASPs, followed by France, the Netherlands, Malta, and Cyprus. However, the data indicates authorizations remain concentrated in a few jurisdictions. Furthermore, not all licenses are equal. While custody and exchange services are common, only 17 firms are authorized to operate a crypto trading platform, meaning the high CASP count does not equate to many fully authorized exchanges.

European regulators authorized dozens of crypto firms in the final days before the EU’s MiCA transition period ended, according to an analysis of the latest ESMA register data.

The register shows 36 crypto-asset service provider authorizations dated between June 23 and July 1, highlighting a late licensing push as firms moved to comply with the bloc’s new unified crypto rules.

Crypto firms rushed for approval before MiCA deadline

The uploaded CASP register shows 283 authorized crypto-asset service provider records, with 66 authorizations dated in June alone.

The pace accelerated near the deadline. The register lists 13 authorizations on June 30, one day before the transition period ended, and one more on July 1.

ESMA had warned that unauthorized providers serving EU clients should stop onboarding new clients and begin winding down regulated activities once the transition period ended.

Germany leads Europe’s MiCA licensing race

Germany has the largest number of authorized CASPs in the register, with 59 records.

France leads with 31, followed by the Netherlands with 28, Malta with 22, and Cyprus with 21.

The data suggests MiCA authorizations remain concentrated in a handful of jurisdictions, even though the regulation creates a passporting framework for licensed firms to operate across the European Economic Area.

Trading platform approvals remain limited

The register also shows that not all MiCA licenses are equal.

Custody, transfer services, and exchange permissions appear far more common than trading platform authorizations. Only 17 firms in the file are authorized to operate a crypto trading platform.

That distinction matters because a large CASP count does not mean Europe has 283 fully authorized exchanges. Many firms hold narrower permissions, such as custody, transfer services, order execution, or crypto-to-fiat exchange.


Final Summary

  • ESMA register data shows 36 CASP authorizations issued between June 23 and July 1, suggesting a late MiCA approval wave before the EU deadline.
  • Germany leads with 59 authorized CASP records, while only 17 firms are authorized to operate crypto trading platforms.

Trending Cryptos

Related Questions

QAccording to the ESMA register data, how many crypto-asset service provider (CASP) authorizations were issued in the final days before the MiCA transition period deadline?

AAccording to the ESMA register data, 36 crypto-asset service provider authorizations were issued between June 23 and July 1, just before the MiCA transition period ended.

QWhich EU member state has the highest number of authorized CASPs in the ESMA register?

AGermany has the highest number of authorized CASPs in the ESMA register, with 59 records.

QHow many firms are authorized to operate a crypto trading platform according to the MiCA register?

AAccording to the MiCA register, only 17 firms are authorized to operate a crypto trading platform.

QWhat did ESMA warn unauthorized crypto providers serving EU clients to do after the MiCA transition period ended?

AESMA warned that unauthorized providers serving EU clients should stop onboarding new clients and begin winding down regulated activities once the transition period ended.

QWhat types of crypto service permissions appear to be more common than trading platform authorizations based on the register data?

ABased on the register data, custody, transfer services, and exchange permissions appear far more common than trading platform authorizations.

Related Reads

BIS Report Compliance Observations: The True Risks of Stablecoins Go Beyond 'De-pegging'

The BIS report, "Anchoring trust in money: innovation beyond stablecoins," highlights that the primary risks of stablecoins extend beyond potential de-pegging. It argues that the core challenge is whether stablecoins can be integrated into a financial system that is identifiable, monitorable, accountable, and regulatable. While acknowledging efficiency gains like faster payments and programmability, BIS emphasizes that money requires an institutional framework—including legal certainty, liquidity support, and financial integrity controls—which many stablecoins currently lack. The report details compliance risks, noting that while blockchain transactions are transparent, address visibility does not equate to identity or purpose clarity. This creates a systemic risk as pseudonymity, non-custodial wallets, and cross-chain bridges can undermine AML/CFT controls. Furthermore, these risks can spill over into the traditional financial system through on- and off-ramps. The future direction, per BIS, is not to prohibit innovation but to embed regulatory rules—such as identity verification and transaction screening—directly into the technological infrastructure of tokenized finance. The key takeaway for compliance is that any new financial instrument must clearly address questions of customer identification, transaction monitoring, accountability, and cross-border rule consistency to be viable as a mainstream payment tool.

marsbit1h ago

BIS Report Compliance Observations: The True Risks of Stablecoins Go Beyond 'De-pegging'

marsbit1h ago

When US Giants Collectively "Defect" to Chinese AI Models

When Silicon Valley Giants Turn to Chinese AI Models to Cut Costs A surprising trend is emerging: major U.S. tech companies are significantly reducing AI costs by switching to Chinese models. Coinbase, the largest U.S. cryptocurrency exchange, reportedly halved its AI spending after migrating to China's GLM-5.2 and Kimi 2.7 models, despite increasing usage. They achieved this through a sophisticated three-part strategy: implementing an automatic routing system to select the most cost-effective model per task, boosting cache hit rates from 5% to 60% to reuse computations, and employing "context engineering" to provide AI with more precise, less cluttered information. They are not alone. AI startup Lindy switched from Claude to DeepSeek, saving millions, while Snowflake's tests found GLM-5.2 solved 66% of coding tasks compared to Claude Opus's 67%—but at a fraction of the cost (output pricing is 5-7 times lower). While the top Western models may offer slightly better stability, the massive price differential is leading many businesses to reconsider their value proposition. This shift signals a deeper change in the AI industry, moving beyond pure performance benchmarks to a fierce cost competition. As pressure mounts, even OpenAI and Anthropic have begun slashing prices. For users, this means more choices, lower costs, and a crucial lesson: using multiple models based on task complexity, optimizing with caching, and keeping contexts lean are now key to leveraging AI efficiently and affordably.

marsbit1h ago

When US Giants Collectively "Defect" to Chinese AI Models

marsbit1h ago

BIS Report Compliance Watch: The Real Risks of Stablecoins Are Not Just 'De-pegging'

BIS Report Compliance Observations: The real risks of stablecoins go beyond "depegging" The BIS report "Anchoring trust in money: innovation beyond stablecoins" argues that while stablecoins and tokenization offer efficiency gains, their primary risk lies in fitting into an identifiable, monitorable, accountable, and regulatable financial system. Money's trust stems not just from technology but from institutional arrangements: a common unit of account, guaranteed redemption at par, liquidity support, regulatory frameworks, and financial integrity requirements. Stablecoins, operating on permissionless blockchains with pseudo-anonymity and non-custodial wallets, create systemic compliance gaps: unclear customer identity, incomplete fund origins, unexplained transaction purposes, fragmented cross-chain paths, and ambiguous liability. On-chain transparency does not equal compliance transparency. Public addresses don't reveal identity or intent. While blockchain analytics aid law enforcement, they cannot replace routine, large-scale AML/CFT controls. Effective compliance requires a closed-loop process encompassing customer onboarding, transaction monitoring, investigation, reporting, and audit. Stablecoin risks are not confined to the blockchain; they re-enter the traditional financial system via on/off-ramps, exchanges, and payment institutions. This forces banks to monitor client accounts for activity linked to virtual assets. The future direction is not to prohibit innovation but to embed rules into the technology. Tokenized finance should integrate with the existing two-tier monetary system, embedding compliance—like customer identification, pre-transaction screening, and auditable data trails—directly into the transaction flow. For compliance professionals, the key takeaway is that any new financial instrument must answer core questions: Who identifies the customer? Who monitors transactions? Who handles exceptions? Who is liable? Compliance is not the antithesis of innovation but the essential infrastructure for its sustainable growth.

链捕手1h ago

BIS Report Compliance Watch: The Real Risks of Stablecoins Are Not Just 'De-pegging'

链捕手1h ago

Trading

Spot

Hot Articles

How to Buy T

Welcome to HTX.com! We've made purchasing Threshold Network Token (T) simple and convenient. Follow our step-by-step guide to embark on your crypto journey.Step 1: Create Your HTX AccountUse your email or phone number to sign up for a free account on HTX. Experience a hassle-free registration journey and unlock all features.Get My AccountStep 2: Go to Buy Crypto and Choose Your Payment MethodCredit/Debit Card: Use your Visa or Mastercard to buy Threshold Network Token (T) instantly.Balance: Use funds from your HTX account balance to trade seamlessly.Third Parties: We've added popular payment methods such as Google Pay and Apple Pay to enhance convenience.P2P: Trade directly with other users on HTX.Over-the-Counter (OTC): We offer tailor-made services and competitive exchange rates for traders.Step 3: Store Your Threshold Network Token (T)After purchasing your Threshold Network Token (T), store it in your HTX account. Alternatively, you can send it elsewhere via blockchain transfer or use it to trade other cryptocurrencies.Step 4: Trade Threshold Network Token (T)Easily trade Threshold Network Token (T) on HTX's spot market. Simply access your account, select your trading pair, execute your trades, and monitor in real-time. We offer a user-friendly experience for both beginners and seasoned traders.

12.3k Total ViewsPublished 2024.03.29Updated 2026.06.02

How to Buy T

Discussions

Welcome to the HTX Community. Here, you can stay informed about the latest platform developments and gain access to professional market insights. Users' opinions on the price of T (T) are presented below.

活动图片