MiCA Implementation Tracker: CASP Licensing Progress Across the EU

The Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation entered full force on December 30, 2024. That date resolved one question — whether the EU would produce a comprehensive crypto regulatory framework — while opening dozens of operational ones. How fast are national competent authorities (NCAs) processing CASP applications? Which member states are running ahead and which are creating backlogs that threaten market access? What does the transitional period actually mean for firms that registered under pre-MiCA national regimes?

This tracker monitors those questions in real time. Data is sourced from NCA announcements, ESMA’s public register, and regulatory filings where available. Editorial assessments are this publication’s own.

The Transitional Period: What It Is and When It Ends

Before examining country-by-country data, the transitional period mechanics require clarity because they are widely misunderstood — including by some compliance teams.

Article 143(3) of MiCA grants member states the option to allow firms that were providing crypto-asset services under national law prior to December 30, 2024, to continue operating for up to 18 months without a full MiCA authorisation. This takes the deadline to June 30, 2026. The critical word is “option” — member states are not required to implement a transitional period, and those that do may impose conditions shorter than 18 months or more restrictive than the MiCA floor.

Germany extended a transitional period. France did not extend the full 18 months, opting for a shorter runway. The Netherlands required firms to demonstrate they had submitted applications before extending transitional cover. Ireland, notably, has been conservative in extending transitional protections, creating pressure on Dublin-domiciled firms to accelerate their applications.

The practical implication: a firm relying on transitional cover must confirm, jurisdiction by jurisdiction, that (a) the member state has activated the transitional provision, (b) the firm’s prior national registration qualifies, and (c) the member state has not imposed earlier sunset conditions. A compliance programme that assumes a blanket 18-month runway across all EU member states is operating on a legal fiction.

Germany: BaFin — Highest Volume Pipeline

BaFin entered the MiCA era with the heaviest administrative burden of any NCA. Germany’s pre-MiCA regulatory landscape included a mandatory registration requirement for crypto custody under the Banking Act (KWG), introduced in 2020. The result: a substantial number of firms — estimated at over 40 registered custody providers — held national-level permissions that created both a pathway for transitional cover and a large-volume MiCA application pipeline.

BaFin received more CASP licence applications in the first quarter of post-MiCA implementation than any other NCA. The agency has been transparent about processing timelines, indicating that complete applications submitted by mid-2025 would be assessed within the statutory nine-month period, potentially producing first approvals in Q1 2026. Applications involving complex organisational structures, cross-border operations, or novel service types are running on longer timescales.

Key observations from the BaFin pipeline:

Application completeness is the primary processing bottleneck. BaFin has publicly flagged that a significant proportion of initial submissions were incomplete, lacking required documentation on governance arrangements, conflict of interest policies, or prudential requirements. Incomplete applications do not start the nine-month clock.

Crypto custody services are the dominant service type applied for, consistent with Germany’s pre-existing KWG registration base. Exchange and trading service applications are fewer in absolute number but involve more complex business models.

Capital requirements have generated the most back-and-forth between applicants and BaFin. Class 3 CASPs — those operating trading platforms, executing orders, or providing portfolio management — face the highest prudential requirements, including own funds of at least €150,000 or one quarter of fixed overheads. Several applicants have returned to investors for additional capitalisation.

ESMA Register Status: BaFin-authorised CASPs will appear on ESMA’s public register of authorised CASPs, enabling passporting across all 27 member states. As of early 2026, the register remains thin, with most entries reflecting transitional-period notifications rather than full MiCA authorisations. The first wave of full authorisations is expected through mid-2026.

Luxembourg: CSSF — Fund Infrastructure Focus

The Commission de Surveillance du Secteur Financier (CSSF) is processing a qualitatively different application pipeline from BaFin. Luxembourg’s crypto-asset ambitions are concentrated in fund distribution, tokenised fund infrastructure, and institutional custody — not retail exchange activity.

This is consistent with Luxembourg’s role as the EU’s dominant investment fund domicile. The country hosts over 3,600 UCITs and AIFs; the extension of that infrastructure to tokenised fund shares is a natural progression. Several large asset managers with Luxembourg-domiciled funds have engaged Luxembourg-based CASPs or are building CASP subsidiaries to manage tokenised share classes.

The CSSF has issued detailed guidance on MiCA application expectations, including specific requirements for DLT-based service models. Their approach has been methodical rather than aggressive, prioritising application quality over throughput volume. Processing timelines for institutional-grade applications are tracking to the statutory nine months.

Notable CSSF focus areas:

Conflict of interest frameworks for integrated groups — where the CASP applicant is part of a larger financial group that may have proprietary positions in crypto-assets — have received particular scrutiny. The CSSF has indicated it expects robust information barriers equivalent to those applied in traditional securities contexts.

Stablecoin infrastructure: Luxembourg-based firms seeking to provide services related to e-money tokens must navigate both the CASP authorisation framework and the intersection with Payment Institution licensing, since e-money tokens are regulated under both MiCA Title III and the existing e-money framework.

Tokenised fund shares occupy a legally complex position. MiCA Article 2(4) excludes financial instruments covered by MiFID II from its scope. Tokenised fund shares that qualify as UCITS shares are therefore MiFID instruments, not MiCA assets. The compliance implication: firms distributing tokenised UCITS shares need MiFID authorisation, not MiCA authorisation. CSSF has been clear on this distinction; applicants who have filed for CASP licences to manage UCITS share distribution have been redirected to the correct framework.

France: AMF — Regulatory Evolution from PSAN to DASP

France’s approach to MiCA implementation is shaped by its pre-existing regime. The Autorité des Marchés Financiers (AMF) operated a Digital Asset Service Provider (DASP) registration and optional authorisation framework under the PACTE Law of 2019. This was one of the more developed pre-MiCA national frameworks in the EU.

The transition from PSAN/DASP to CASP status is more procedurally complex than Germany’s KWG pathway because France’s pre-MiCA framework included both registered and authorised status, with different service scope in each. Registered DASPs had lighter-touch obligations; authorised DASPs had near-MiCA-equivalent requirements in some areas.

France’s transitional period is shorter than Germany’s. Firms that were merely registered (not authorised) under the DASP regime face a more compressed runway to full CASP authorisation, and the AMF has been explicit that it expects applications well ahead of any sunset date.

The AMF has also published detailed Q&A on service scope definitions — a practical necessity given that MiCA’s service taxonomy (Article 3) differs in non-trivial ways from the PACTE Law taxonomy. Compliance teams mapping existing service permissions to the CASP framework should treat this AMF Q&A as required reading.

Netherlands: DNB — Cautious but Accelerating

The De Nederlandsche Bank (DNB) was already operating a crypto registration regime under the Anti-Money Laundering Directive (AMLD) framework before MiCA. Several major crypto exchanges — including Coinbase, which obtained Dutch registration in 2022 — used the Netherlands as their EU regulatory anchor point.

DNB’s MiCA implementation has been cautious. The authority required firms seeking transitional period cover to demonstrate, within a short window of MiCA’s entry into force, that they had submitted or were actively preparing a CASP application. This created immediate administrative pressure on Amsterdam-based crypto firms in January 2025.

DNB’s application assessments have focused particularly on AML/KYC frameworks, consistent with the bank’s historical regulatory priorities. Firms with robust FATF Travel Rule compliance systems have moved through initial review faster than those requiring remediation.

Ireland: Central Bank — Conservative Application of Transitional Cover

The Central Bank of Ireland (CBI) has been the most restrictive of the major NCAs in its application of transitional period provisions. The CBI’s position — consistent with its historically conservative approach to fintech authorisation — is that firms should not rely on transitional cover as a basis for business planning. The CBI has stated publicly that it views the transitional period as a compliance runway, not a commercial opportunity.

This has significant implications for any firm that chose Ireland as its MiCA domicile specifically to benefit from an extended transitional period. Those firms should treat the CBI’s position as a hard constraint and plan accordingly.

Technical Standards: What Remains Incomplete

The ESMA regulatory technical standards (RTS) and implementing technical standards (ITS) packages under MiCA are not yet complete. As of early 2026, several technically material packages remain in draft or consultation phase:

RTS on conflicts of interest (MiCA Article 72): Final standards issued, effective Q3 2025.

RTS on business continuity (MiCA Article 74): Final standards issued.

ITS on standard forms for CASP applications (MiCA Article 62): Adopted, in use.

RTS on crypto-asset classification criteria (MiCA Article 97): Consultation completed; final text expected H1 2026. This is the most practically significant outstanding package for compliance teams assessing whether specific tokens are in-scope for MiCA or fall under alternative frameworks.

RTS on reverse solicitation (MiCA Article 61): Guidance published but not yet binding RTS. Reverse solicitation — the provision of services to EU clients by third-country firms solely at client initiative — is the most contested provision in MiCA for global platforms. ESMA has signalled it will interpret this narrowly.

ESMA Public Register: Current Status

The ESMA public register of authorised CASPs is the definitive source for passporting verification. As of early 2026, the register is in a transitional state: it includes both transitional-period notifications (which do not confer passporting rights) and full MiCA authorisations (which do). The register’s interface does not always make this distinction visually obvious.

Compliance teams verifying counterparty status should check not only whether an entity appears on the ESMA register but whether the entry reflects a full MiCA authorisation or merely a transitional notification. The difference matters for passporting reliance, AML obligations, and the counterparty risk assessment frameworks of institutional clients.

What to Watch: H1 2026

The June 30, 2026 expiry of transitional periods in most member states will be the first hard test of MiCA’s implementation machinery. Three scenarios are worth monitoring:

Licensing backlog scenario: If NCAs — particularly BaFin — have not processed sufficient applications by April 2026 to give firms confidence they will receive decisions before June 30, political pressure for further transitional extensions will mount. ESMA has indicated it has no authority to grant extensions beyond what member states have already activated under Article 143(3); any extension would require legislative action.

Jurisdictional consolidation scenario: Firms operating under multiple national registrations may consolidate to a single MiCA CASP licence with passporting, reducing their NCA relationships from several to one. This is the rational outcome of the passporting framework but requires careful planning around which member state offers the most favourable licensing conditions for the specific business model.

Enforcement gap scenario: The period between transitional expiry and full MiCA authorisation — if a firm’s application remains pending at the NCA — creates a legal grey zone. MiCA does not specify that pending applications confer continued permission to operate. National implementing law in some member states may create a bridge; in others, firms may face a gap. See the enforcement tracker for how NCAs are expected to handle this scenario.

For the latest guidance on passporting mechanics, see /regulations/mica/. For jurisdiction-specific licensing strategies, see /licensing/.