TRM Labs Reports MiCA Led to Liquidation of 80% of European Crypto Companies

cryptonews.ruPublished on 2026-08-13Last updated on 2026-08-13

Abstract

As the transition period for the EU's Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) regulation ends, the European crypto industry has entered a consolidation phase. A TRM Labs report found that MiCA has significantly streamlined the landscape: only about one-fifth (281 out of 1,343) of pre-MiCA crypto-asset service providers (CASPs) have applied for and obtained licenses under the new rules. The impact was most severe in jurisdictions with previously lighter registration requirements. None of the over 1,800 CASPs registered in Poland obtained a MiCA license, while only eight out of over 400 did in Lithuania. In contrast, early licensing jurisdictions like Germany now host a majority of licensed firms, with BaFin granting 55 licenses. TRM Labs states MiCA is achieving its goal of limiting high-risk firms' access to European customers. Among non-licensed firms, 12% were rated "High" or "Severe" risk, compared to just 2% among licensed ones. Sanctions exposure also differed sharply: unlicensed firms sent $5 billion to sanctioned counterparties, versus $1.7 billion from licensed ones. Risk exposure for delisted firms is roughly four times higher. However, MiCA has negatively impacted European access to major stablecoins, raising industry concerns. In response, the EU is planning a full review of the MiCA framework to address stablecoin issues and include tokenized assets.

As the transitional period established by the Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) regulation expires in Europe, the European cryptocurrency industry has entered a new stage of consolidation, with changes among existing Crypto-Asset Service Providers (CASPs) that have altered the landscape of the digital asset market.

A recent report by TRM Labs found that MiCA has facilitated the streamlining and consolidation of the European CASP ecosystem: only about one-fifth (281 out of 1,343) of crypto organizations that existed before MiCA came into force have applied for and received authorization to operate under the new rules.

The hardest hit were jurisdictions with less stringent registration requirements. None of the over 1,800 crypto organizations registered in Poland obtained MiCA authorization, and in Lithuania, only eight out of over 400 did.

TRM Labs notes that jurisdictions that started licensing early, such as Germany, have concentrated the vast majority of registered crypto companies. Germany's BaFin issued authorizations to 55 companies, while French and Dutch regulators issued 29 authorizations each.

Nevertheless, MiCA is fulfilling its purpose, as this system prevents high-risk companies from accessing European customers. TRM Labs ratings show that 12% of companies that remain unauthorized fall into the "High" or "Severe" risk category, while among authorized companies, this figure is 2%.

Exposure to sanctions-related risks is a distinguishing factor between these two groups: unlicensed companies transferred $5 billion to counterparties subject to sanctions, while licensed companies transferred only $1.7 billion, which is almost a third of that amount.

"While risk exposure overall appears similar for both groups, risk is more concentrated among deregistered companies. Half of them show no measurable illicit exposure, while a small number direct between 1% and 12% of their volume directly to illicit addresses. As a result, risk exposure for deregistered companies is approximately four times higher," the report concludes.

Nevertheless, MiCA has had a negative impact on Europeans' access to stablecoins, and cryptocurrency executives have expressed concern about the consequences of excluding high-market-cap stablecoins from the region.

However, the EU is now planning a full review of the MiCA framework aimed at addressing the stablecoin issue and including tokenized assets within its scope.

Related Questions

QAccording to the TRM Labs report, what percentage of pre-MiCA crypto companies in Europe successfully obtained a license under the new regulation?

AApproximately 20% (281 out of 1,343) of the crypto organizations existing before MiCA obtained authorization under the new rules.

QWhich two EU countries, mentioned in the article, were most affected by MiCA's licensing requirements, with no companies licensed in one and only eight in the other?

APoland (none of over 1,800 companies licensed) and Lithuania (only eight out of over 400 companies licensed).

QWhat is a key risk-related difference highlighted in the report between licensed and unlicensed crypto companies?

AUnlicensed companies transferred $5 billion to sanctioned counterparties, while licensed companies transferred only $1.7 billion, which is about one-third of that amount.

QWhat negative impact has MiCA had on the European crypto market, according to the article?

AMiCA has negatively impacted Europeans' access to stablecoins, with concerns raised about the exclusion of high-market-cap stablecoins from the region.

QWhat are the future plans of the EU regarding the MiCA framework mentioned at the end of the article?

AThe EU plans a comprehensive review of the MiCA framework to address the issue of stablecoins and include tokenized assets within its scope.

Related Reads

Trezor Customer Data Leak: Coins Are Safe, But Phishing Is Inevitable

Trezor, a hardware cryptocurrency wallet manufacturer, reported a data breach at its logistics partner, ShipMonk, affecting around 13,689 customers. The incident, confirmed on August 13, 2026, involved unauthorized access to ShipMonk's systems, which stored order information from May 10 to August 8, 2026. Trezor's own systems and user crypto assets were not compromised. The leaked data varies: for 11,742 customers, full names, email addresses, phone numbers, and delivery addresses were exposed. For 1,947 others, only name, city, and email were leaked. The breach was limited to customers in the US, UK, Sweden, Colombia, Brazil, Italy, and Portugal. Trezor warns affected users of an increased risk of phishing attacks, where malicious actors may use the stolen contact details to impersonate Trezor, banks, or exchanges to steal wallet recovery phrases. All impacted customers have been notified via email. In response, Trezor announced a planned "Anonymous Delivery" feature for the EU (September 2026) and the US (end of 2026), aiming to anonymize logistics data. ShipMonk has not yet issued a public statement on its official website. The analysis highlights this as a recurring industry pattern where third-party logistics vendors become weak links in the supply chain, storing data longer than necessary. Similar incidents, like the 2020 Ledger breach, led to prolonged phishing campaigns. A key question remains whether hardware wallets can ever fully decouple from external logistics risks.

cryptonews.ru8m ago

Trezor Customer Data Leak: Coins Are Safe, But Phishing Is Inevitable

cryptonews.ru8m ago

Token Buyback Volumes Continue to Rise, But Price Lows Keep Falling

The volume of token buybacks continues to grow, but the minimum price level is constantly declining, according to an internal memo by Bitwise CIO Matt Hogan. He argues that most crypto tokens, except Bitcoin, are undervalued as investors are unaware of the revenue now being returned to holders. He highlights the example of Hyperliquid, which has bought back and burned $1.3 billion worth of its $HYPE token. Hogan posits that tokens are beginning to trade based on revenue, similar to stocks and bonds, marking the end of an era where scaling networks provided little token utility. He links token valuation to strengthening protocol revenue, noting that Hyperliquid has earned over $800 million in the past year and spends nearly all fees on $HYPE buybacks. Following this model, protocols like Uniswap and Aave have implemented fee mechanisms to buy back and burn their own tokens. The trend has also affected base chains like Solana and Aptos, which have proposed or enacted higher fee burns. However, the memo acknowledges that reducing token supply has not reliably boosted prices. A Cryptopolitan report found many tokens with regular buybacks still underperformed the market. Even Hyperliquid's upward trend broke, and Pump.fun conducted significant buybacks near token lows. Hogan cautions that token buybacks differ from stock buybacks due to the lack of contractual claims on profits or assets, as governance rules can always be rewritten.

cryptonews.ru59m ago

Token Buyback Volumes Continue to Rise, But Price Lows Keep Falling

cryptonews.ru59m ago

Trading

Spot
活动图片