After the MiCA Transitional Period: Non-CASP Operating Models Require Careful Structuring

The transitional period under the EU Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA) for eligible crypto-asset service providers ended on 1 July 2026. During that period, certain providers that had been operating under applicable national regimes before 30 December 2024 could continue their activities until 1 July 2026, or until they were granted or refused MiCA authorisation, where the relevant Member State allowed such transitional treatment. This was the maximum European Union-wide end date of the MiCA transitional regime. Some Member States applied a shorter transitional period or did not apply the regime in full.

With the transitional period now ended, there is no longer a MiCA transitional basis for eligible previously operating providers to continue providing crypto-asset services without crypto-asset service provider (CASP) authorisation. More generally, the provision of MiCA-scope crypto-asset services in the European Union is subject to CASP authorisation, unless the provider is an eligible financial entity permitted to provide the relevant services under the MiCA notification route. Importantly, MiCA does not provide a general agency framework for CASPs. As clarified by the European Commission, a CASP cannot appoint an unauthorised agent to provide crypto-asset services on its behalf. If an agent is appointed to provide such services, that agent would itself need to be a CASP.

This creates practical challenges for crypto-asset businesses that were not able to obtain CASP authorisation in time, as well as for new market entrants that are not yet ready to seek CASP authorisation. However, this does not mean that every form of participation in the crypto market is necessarily prohibited. Subject to careful legal analysis, some operating models may be structured so that the unlicensed party remains outside the provision of crypto-asset services, while a duly authorised provider actually provides and remains responsible for the regulated services. Such models require careful assessment of the actual business model, customer journey, contractual structure, allocation of responsibilities, regulatory classification and appropriate safeguards. The key question is not how the model is labelled, but whether the unlicensed party is in substance providing a crypto-asset service within the meaning of MiCA.

In the long term, CASP authorisation may still be the more robust solution for businesses seeking independence, scalability and direct control over regulated crypto-asset services. A Non-CASP operating model may be suitable in certain cases, but it should be treated as a structured and carefully controlled model rather than a substitute for authorisation where authorisation is legally required.