Directory · Jurisdictions
Comparing EU jurisdictions for a MiCA CASP licence
A neutral, side-by-side look at where firms get authorised as a Crypto-Asset Service Provider under MiCA. There is no single best country; the right one depends on where your business, board, and advisers actually are. Capital requirements and the licence itself are the same EU-wide.
Last updated 2026-06-19. Timelines are real-world estimates from public guidance, not statutory limits; CASP counts are point-in-time and drift weekly.
| Jurisdiction | Regulator | Typical timeline | Pre-MiCA experience | CASPs so far | Posture |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lithuania | Bank of Lithuania | ~6 months end-to-end | Large pre-MiCA crypto/VASP register; deep local base | ~6 | High-volume entry point, increasingly rigorous |
| Malta | MFSA | ~9 to 18 months incl. prep | VFA Act 2018, one of the EU's earliest bespoke regimes | ~12 | Institutional, thorough, higher cost |
| Cyprus | CySEC | ~3 to 6 months | National CASP register since 2021; CIF experience | ~10 | Securities-regulator approach, prioritises existing registrants |
| Ireland | Central Bank of Ireland | ~6 to 12 months, pre-application heavy | VASP AML registration; existing supervisory relationships count | ~11 | Institutional, high-bar, selective gatekeeper |
| Czechia | Czech National Bank | ~6 to 8 months, currently backlogged | Low-friction trade-licence regime until Feb 2025 | ~6 of 248 filed | Accessible legacy, demanding review, slow clearing the queue |
| Germany | BaFin | ~6 to 18 months by prior footprint | KWG crypto-custody licence; simplified route for legacy holders | ~53 (largest in EU) | Institutional, strict, substance-over-form |
| Netherlands | AFM | ~9 to 12 months | DNB crypto registration since 2020; prior checks cut fees | ~23 | Strict, substance-first, front-loaded scrutiny |
| France | AMF | ~6 to 10 months; fast-track for enhanced PSANs | PSAN/DASP regime from the 2019 PACTE law, most mature on the continent | ~12 | Institutional, rigorous, consumer-protection focused |
| Poland | KNF (not yet designated) | No pathway open as of mid-2026 | AML VASP register only; implementing act stalled | ~0 | Legislative deadlock; firms passporting in or redomiciling |
How to read this
Speed and rigour tend to move together: the regulators that clear files fastest are not always the ones that ask the fewest questions, and a heavier process can mean a smoother supervisory relationship afterwards. Pick where your business, board, and lawyers actually are, because Article 59(2) requires real substance (an EU registered office and effective management there), and a letterbox entity is a standard ground for refusal. The licence passports regardless of where you obtain it.
Two practical notes from the current cycle: some member states closed their transitional windows early, so check the per-country deadlines before assuming you can keep operating; and at least one market (Poland) has no working authorisation pathway as of mid-2026, so firms there are passporting in from elsewhere. For the full per-country picture, see the jurisdiction guides.
Editorial. Not legal advice. Confirm current timelines, fees, and CASP counts with the relevant national competent authority and the ESMA register.