Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation created a unified EU licensing framework for crypto-asset service providers. The gap between the legal text and how competent authorities are implementing it is already visible.
MiCA requires crypto-asset service providers to obtain authorization from a national competent authority in their member state of establishment. That authorization enables passporting across the EU. National competent authorities vary in processing capacity, familiarity with crypto business models, and how they interpret MiCA’s requirements. Early applications have surfaced meaningful differences in what authorities ask for and how long reviews take.
The choice of member state for authorization is not purely administrative. It determines which authority reviews the application and how the requirements are interpreted in practice.
MiCA’s three-category classification — asset-referenced tokens, e-money tokens, and other crypto-assets — does not resolve all cases. Projects with novel structures or evolving utility face genuine uncertainty about which category applies. Some authorities have been willing to engage on classification before a formal filing; others have not.
MiCA’s transitional provisions allow existing operators to continue under national regimes for a defined period. How member states have structured these arrangements varies. The practical implications depend on the specific national framework previously in place and how the transition has been implemented domestically.