Poland used to be one of Europe’s most active crypto markets. Its virtual-currency register contained 1,841 businesses, ranging from small peer-to-peer operators and local brokers to wallet providers and crypto exchanges. The register’s size reflected a market with relatively low barriers to entry, where many small companies could build services around local customers.
That market was very different from the one MiCA was designed to regulate. Most Polish operators were not multinational exchanges with large compliance teams and deep reserves. Many were small businesses built around modest transaction volumes, low overheads and direct relationships with customers.
MiCA introduced a more demanding framework, requiring crypto-asset service providers to meet formal standards for capital, governance, cybersecurity, customer protection and transaction monitoring. For the largest firms, these were costs they could absorb. For many smaller Polish operators, they were costs the business could not support.
Poland’s problem was not merely that small operators lacked time to transition. Time would not have solved the central issue. Many could not afford MiCA under any realistic timetable. Their businesses were built around small customer bases, low overheads and modest margins, while the new framework required the capital, governance and compliance infrastructure of a much larger financial-services business. Poland’s failure to create a functioning domestic authorisation route left them with no clear path forward, but the economic barrier came first. These operators were not pushed out because they missed a manageable deadline. They were placed in a system they could not afford to enter.
The market behind the register
Poland’s former virtual-currency register covered a wide range of businesses. It included companies exchanging virtual currencies for traditional money, exchanging one crypto-asset for another, arranging transactions and maintaining certain wallet accounts.
That is why the figure of 1,841 needs to be understood as a measure of the market’s breadth, not a count of major exchanges.
The companies behind the register were not all built in the same way. Some were local brokers. Some helped buyers and sellers find each other. Others dealt with wallet services or specialised in transactions that were too small or too local to interest an international platform.
A business could operate with a small team and a limited customer base. Its owner might handle several functions personally. Technology could be rented from an outside provider. Customers might come through local networks rather than expensive advertising.
The market was large because it allowed this kind of participation.
A business did not need to raise institutional capital before it could begin. It did not need to build a large compliance department on its first day. It could start with a narrow service, develop a customer base and grow gradually.
That model had weaknesses, but it also gave Poland a broad and varied crypto sector.
What the old system actually offered
The former register was connected to Poland’s anti-money-laundering framework. The General Inspector of Financial Information, or GIIF, was the country’s central AML and financial-intelligence authority. The register itself was maintained by the Director of the Katowice Tax Administration Chamber.
An entry in the register was not the same as a full financial licence. The authorities made that clear. It did not mean that the KNF had assessed the company in the same way it would assess a bank, payment institution or investment firm. It did not guarantee that customers would recover their assets if the business failed.
The system was limited, but it gave smaller companies a legal route into the market.
That distinction matters. The register was not designed to prove that every operator had the financial strength of an institution. It was a way to record businesses conducting certain virtual-currency activities and bring them within the country’s AML framework.
A small broker could therefore operate without looking like a large exchange. A P2P business could serve local customers without building a central trading venue. A specialist provider could focus on one service instead of creating an entire financial infrastructure.
The market’s accessibility was part of its character.
MiCA raised the standard
MiCA changed the type of company expected to operate professionally in the crypto sector.
The regulation covers custody and administration, trading platforms, exchange services, execution, placing, reception and transmission of orders, advice, portfolio management and transfers.
A business seeking CASP authorisation has to give the regulator a detailed picture of how it operates. That includes its ownership, management, governance arrangements, internal controls, programme of operations and intended services.
It also has to show who makes decisions, how risks are identified and how the business protects customers.
For a company holding customer assets, the requirements become more demanding. It must explain how assets are safeguarded, how access is controlled and how the ownership rights of clients are protected. EU rules require detailed information about custody arrangements, policies, contracts and operational risks.
MiCA also sets minimum permanent capital requirements of €50,000, €125,000 or €150,000 depending on the services offered. Prudential safeguards must also equal the higher of the applicable minimum or 25% of fixed overheads.
The figures are substantial for a small business, but the capital is only the beginning.
The cost was larger than the licence
The real expense came from everything required around the application.
A small operator could need legal advice, regulatory consultants, accounting, cybersecurity work, audit assistance, transaction-monitoring software and new internal procedures. It might need to rebuild its custody arrangements or introduce a formal complaints process. It might need to document outsourcing, business continuity and incident reporting.
These are not one-time expenses. They continue after authorisation.
Policies need updating. Systems need monitoring. Staff need training. Regulatory requests need answers. Customer complaints and operational incidents need to be handled properly.
A major exchange can spread those costs across a large volume of trades and a substantial customer base. A local P2P business cannot.
For a small operator, the problem was not simply finding the formal capital amount. It was paying for the legal and technical structure that made the application credible while continuing to run the business.
Many firms were built around modest margins. They could support a small team and basic systems, but not the cost of operating like a regulated financial institution.
This is why MiCA could exclude smaller firms without explicitly banning them. The rules were formally open to any applicant. The cost of entering them was not.
Small P2P operators were particularly exposed
P2P businesses did not necessarily operate like centralised exchanges.
Some matched buyers and sellers. Some arranged trades manually. Some relied on online tools without running a conventional trading venue. Others offered brokerage or wallet services to a small group of customers.
Their legal position depended on what they actually did, not the label they used. A business calling itself a marketplace could still be providing a service covered by MiCA. A company handling customer funds or crypto-assets could face more obligations than a non-custodial intermediary.
That created a difficult classification problem.
A large exchange could pay lawyers to analyse its business model and redesign its services if necessary. A small operator might not be able to afford the advice needed to determine exactly where it stood.
If the company continued without authorisation, it faced legal and banking risks. If it applied, it had to fund a costly process without knowing whether the business would remain profitable. If it removed the services that created the most regulatory exposure, it might also remove the services that attracted customers.
The question was not whether the owner wanted to comply. It was whether compliance left a viable business.
Poland never built the bridge
MiCA applied directly across the European Union, but it still required each Member State to establish the domestic arrangements needed for supervision and enforcement. Poland never completed that process.
The Polish legislation intended to create the national framework for crypto-asset services was vetoed by President Karol Nawrocki. ESMA materials continued to list Poland as “non-compliance by default” because the country had not designated the relevant competent authority for the required MiCA procedures.
For Polish operators, that meant there was no functioning national route from the old virtual-currency register to a MiCA authorisation. The former registration system was not converted into a licence, and Poland did not put a replacement system in place.
The issue was not that small businesses were given six months, or even some shorter period, to complete the transition. Poland did not create a domestic transition framework at all. Operators were left with the old register losing its practical value while the national system meant to replace it remained unfinished.
MiCA still applied as EU law. Poland’s failure to pass the implementing legislation did not suspend the regulation or give businesses a permanent right to operate under the old rules.
It left them without a clear Polish process for applying, without a designated authority to guide them through it and without a realistic bridge between the market they had entered and the one
MiCA required them to join.
The old registration route lost its value
Polish authorities later told customers that the transition period had ended on 1 July 2026. They warned that an entry in the former virtual-currency register did not authorise a business to operate as a CASP or VASP after that date.
That announcement did not create a Polish licensing system. It only confirmed that the old registration could no longer be treated as a substitute for MiCA authorisation.
For a small operator, the problem was immediate. The business could not rely on its existing registration, but it also had no functioning domestic route through which to obtain the new status. The old legal foundation was being set aside while the replacement framework remained incomplete.
This does not establish how many businesses closed or how many continued through another structure. Public sources do not provide a complete count of exits, relocations or applications.
What they do show is that the old registration had lost its practical value. Remaining on the list no longer answered the questions that mattered. Was the company authorised to continue? Which authority would assess it? Could it serve customers while waiting? What rules applied to its existing operations?
For large companies, those questions could be handled by lawyers and regulatory teams. For a small P2P operator, they could determine whether the business was worth keeping open.
Relocating was not realistic for most
A company with offices and staff across Europe could look for another route. It might apply in a Member State with an established authority and use its existing infrastructure to continue operating.
A small Polish operator rarely had that option.
Relocation would involve more than registering a company abroad. The business would need a genuine local structure, banking, payment providers, legal and accounting support, suitable management and an application prepared for another regulator.
It would also need money to operate during the move.
For a small P2P business, that could mean:
- Establishing a new company.
- Finding local advisers.
- Preparing new policies and documentation.
- Opening bank and payment accounts.
- Appointing management and compliance staff.
- Adapting customer and transaction systems.
- Continuing to serve existing customers during the change.
These firms were often local by design. Their customers were in Poland. Their payment methods were Polish. Their advantage came from language, familiarity and direct contact.
They were not international exchanges choosing between European headquarters.
Relocation could be a sensible strategy for a larger business. For a small broker, it could cost more than the business was worth.
The bank could decide the outcome
Regulatory uncertainty also affected banking.
A small crypto business needs accounts for customer deposits and withdrawals, wages, suppliers, taxes and ordinary expenses. It may rely on one payment provider to connect customers with the service. It may need a liquidity partner to complete transactions.
Large exchanges have more leverage. They can maintain several relationships and employ staff who deal with bank compliance teams.
A small operator may not have that protection. If its regulatory status is unclear or its corporate structure is changing, a bank may decide that the relationship is too difficult or too risky.
That can start a cycle the business cannot escape. Without a bank account, it cannot process customer payments normally. Without revenue, it cannot pay for legal advice, software or compliance work. Without a stable regulatory position, it becomes harder to reassure the bank.
A company caught in that cycle may run out of money before the legal situation is resolved.
This pressure is easy to miss when looking only at the text of MiCA. The regulation does not say that a bank must close a small operator’s account. But banks respond to regulatory uncertainty, and small businesses have fewer alternatives when one relationship ends.
Transfers became more complicated
The changes did not stop with the authorisation question.
Poland’s General Inspector of Financial Information (GIIF) told virtual-currency businesses to adapt their systems to the Transfer of Funds Regulation, including requirements connected to crypto transfers and external wallets.
For a small operator, that affects everyday work.
The business may need to collect information about the sender and recipient, assess transfers involving wallets outside the control of regulated providers and keep records showing that its procedures are working.
A large exchange can build those checks into its platform. A small P2P business may have to carry them out manually or buy an external system.
Manual checks may be possible at low volume, but they use up staff time. A small team has to answer customer questions, review transactions, deal with missing information and maintain records.
An outside software system may help, but it creates another cost. It also does not remove the operator’s responsibility for making sure the system works.
The customer experience changes as well. More questions and longer processing times can make the service less attractive. If customers trade less, the business earns less at the same time as its compliance costs are rising.
The missing middle
The most important issue is not simply how many businesses may leave. It is what kind of market remains when they do.
Poland’s former system supported a middle layer between informal trading and multinational exchanges. It included local brokers, small P2P operators and specialist providers that were too small to operate like financial institutions but more organised than private individuals trading directly.
That market had weaknesses. The old register did not provide full supervision or guarantee customer protection. But it gave smaller businesses a way to serve customers.
MiCA created a stronger and more consistent standard. That makes sense for a custodian holding large amounts of client assets or a trading platform processing substantial volumes.
It is less obvious that every low-volume, non-custodial service should carry the same fixed burden.
A small broker does not create the same risk as a multinational custodian. A business that introduces customers to an authorised platform is not operating the same infrastructure as a trading venue. A provider that never controls client wallets is not in the same position as one that holds customer assets.
A proportionate system would take those differences into account.
But even proving that a business is low risk can cost money. A micro-business may need legal advice, written procedures and technical documentation simply to show that it qualifies for lighter treatment.
That is how the middle disappears. The law may remain formally open to small firms, but the process becomes too expensive for them to use.
What customers lose
The disappearance of small providers would affect more than the number of company names in a register.
Local businesses could offer Polish-language support, local payment methods and direct contact with customers. They could serve small communities or transaction types that large platforms did not consider important enough to prioritise.
Major authorised exchanges may provide stronger formal protections. They may not replace the same local service.
Some customers will move to large platforms. Others may look for offshore or unauthorised alternatives. The demand for P2P trading does not necessarily disappear when local providers struggle to continue.
That creates a difficult outcome. A regulatory system intended to move customers towards authorised businesses may push some users towards less visible services if the authorised options are too expensive, too complicated or unwilling to serve them.
A customer dealing with a small local provider may at least know who runs the business and how to contact it. An offshore or anonymous service may offer fewer practical remedies if a withdrawal is delayed or assets become inaccessible.
The formal market can become cleaner while some activity moves outside it.
What a proportionate system could have offered
Small operators should not have been exempt from anti-money-laundering rules or customer protection. A business holding customer assets should meet serious standards regardless of its size.
The alternative would have been a realistic route for businesses with lower volumes and narrower services.
That could have included:
- A simplified authorisation process for non-custodial providers.
- Lower-cost requirements for brokers that do not hold client assets.
- Shared compliance systems for small businesses.
- A regulatory sandbox with limits on customers and transaction value.
- Staged requirements linked to assets and transaction volume.
- Clear rules for P2P matching services.
- Practical guidance for owner-managed companies.
- A functioning domestic authority able to answer questions and process applications.
- A public record showing how former operators moved into or out of the new framework.
None of this would remove the need to address fraud, money laundering or customer losses.
It would recognise that a small broker creates different risks from a major custodian. It would also give businesses a way to grow into the system instead of asking them to build the full structure before they could realistically afford it.
Without that distinction, scale becomes a practical requirement. Companies with capital and international structures have options. Smaller businesses face a choice between paying costs they cannot support and leaving the market.
The evidence has limits
The public record does not establish that Poland’s crypto market had already contracted by a specific amount. It does not provide a complete account of which businesses closed, relocated, applied elsewhere or continued under a different structure.
Nor should the 1,841 entries in the former register be treated as a count of active exchanges.
The stronger argument is about the structure of the market and the economics of the new system.
Poland had a large crypto sector because its former framework allowed many small businesses to participate. Those firms were not all large exchanges waiting to become larger. They were often local operators built around low costs, modest margins and direct relationships with customers.
MiCA required a more formal business with stronger governance, capital, technical controls and ongoing compliance. Many of those operators could not afford to enter that system at all.
That was the first problem. The absence of a functioning Polish authorisation route made it worse.
A system small firms could not enter
Poland’s old register was never meant to be a permanent replacement for MiCA. It was not a full financial licence, and it did not offer the protections associated with one.
But Poland also failed to build a practical bridge between the old system and the new one.
The implementing legislation was vetoed. The national authority structure remained incomplete. MiCA still applied directly, and the old register could no longer provide a secure basis for continuing after the relevant EU deadline.
Large companies had ways to manage that uncertainty. They could use foreign structures, hire specialists and spread the costs across several markets.
Small Polish P2P operators generally could not.
That does not prove that every small business closed. It explains why many were never in a realistic position to enter MiCA in the first place.
Poland’s former crypto market was large because small operators could participate without first becoming financial institutions. MiCA changed the cost of participation. It demanded capital, governance and technical infrastructure that many local businesses did not have and could not afford to acquire.
For a major exchange, MiCA is a compliance project. For a small Polish P2P operator, it is a question of whether the business can enter the regulated market at all.
Sources:
