The European Union has added 12 more crypto-asset service providers to its MiCA register, bringing the total to 321 and showing that the bloc’s licensing regime is no longer theoretical, it is becoming operational, one approval at a time.
- 12 new crypto firms added
- 321 CASPs now listed
- MiCA is fully applicable, but deadlines vary
- ESMA keeps the register; NCAs issue approvals
- Brussels may want ESMA to take more control
On July 31, the European Securities and Markets Authority, or ESMA, updated its interim MiCA register again, adding 12 new crypto-asset service providers, or CASPs. The total number of authorized CASPs now stands at 321, according to ESMA’s register.
That count is a snapshot, not a permanent monument. ESMA says the register is interim and updated weekly while it is being integrated into its systems, so the number can shift as new approvals are reported and published.
CASPs are firms that provide crypto-related services and need authorization under the EU’s Markets in Crypto-Assets regulation, better known as MiCA. MiCA is the bloc’s main crypto rulebook, and it is designed to bring order to a market that spent years exploiting legal gray zones across 27 different member states.
It also regulates token issuers. Two important categories are tracked in the framework:
ARTs, or asset-referenced tokens, are meant to hold stable value by referencing one or more assets. EMTs, or e-money tokens, are designed to hold stable value by referencing a single fiat currency, such as the euro. In the register information provided, those issuer lists were unchanged at 0 ARTs and 41 EMTs.
That matters because it suggests Europe’s MiCA machinery is moving faster on service-provider licensing than on token issuance. Regulation can create the rails, but it does not magically create adoption. The market still has to build the train.
The newly authorized firms reportedly included German cooperative banks such as Volksbank Raiffeisenbank Oberbayern Suedost, VR Bank Schleswig-Holstein Mitte, and VR-Bank Landau-Mengkofen, along with firms including Basque Pay, Fintech Payments, Finary, Woorton, Blockchain Process Security, and Shares Financial Assets.
The presence of cooperative banks is worth noting. MiCA is no longer just a sandbox for crypto-native outfits with loud branding and a whitepaper full of hot air. Mainstream financial institutions are now being pulled into the same compliance architecture.
ESMA also added three Italy-based companies, Servo Lendisco, Flandenzo, and Corona Fondenza, to its list of non-authorized firms. That side of the register matters too. MiCA is not only about who gets a license; it is also about making it easier for users and markets to see who does not have one.
MiCA is live, but Europe is not moving on one single clock
MiCA reached full application on December 30, 2024, but that did not mean every existing firm was suddenly forced off the field. The framework includes a transitional regime that can last up to 18 months, depending on the member state. Some countries chose shorter windows, while others opted for the full extension.
That is why the real deadline is not uniform across the bloc. In some jurisdictions the transition ended much earlier. In others, firms can continue operating until the outer limit of July 1, 2026, so long as they have applied and remain within the rules. If they fail to apply, or their application is refused, they must stop operating in that jurisdiction.
So yes, MiCA is now fully applicable. No, that does not mean every EU crypto firm woke up to the same deadline on the same day. Europe prefers a single market in theory and a patchwork of timelines in practice. Very on-brand.
Why the register matters
ESMA does not issue MiCA licenses itself. Under the current setup, that job mostly belongs to each member state’s national competent authority, or NCA. ESMA receives information, maintains the register, pushes supervisory consistency, and coordinates across borders, but it is not the primary licensing authority.
That split is the heart of the current tension.
MiCA was meant to make cross-border crypto business simpler by standardizing rules and enabling passporting, the EU system that can allow a firm authorized in one member state to operate across the bloc. In theory, that reduces friction. In practice, it only works if regulators apply the rules with roughly the same level of rigor.
If one jurisdiction is seen as softer than the others, firms will naturally head there. That is the familiar game of regulatory arbitrage: choose the friendliest gatekeeper and call it “efficiency.”
Brussels is already eyeing more centralization
That concern has fueled criticism from France and elsewhere that some member states may be competing too aggressively for crypto business. France’s AMF president, Marie-Anne Barbat-Layani, described the dynamic as a “race to the bottom”, blunt, but not exactly crazy if licensing becomes a race to the easiest yes.
The broader political answer being floated in Brussels is to move more power to ESMA. In its April 9 opinion, the ECB said it welcomes the Commission proposal to transfer authorization, monitoring and enforcement powers for all CASPs from NCAs to ESMA.
“The ECB welcomes the Commission proposal to strengthen the supervisory framework for crypto asset service providers (CASPs) by transferring authorisation, monitoring and enforcement powers for all CASPs from the NCAs to ESMA, ” the ECB said.
“This measure will ensure supervisory convergence, reduce fragmentation and mitigate cross-border risks in crypto-asset markets, thereby supporting financial stability and the integrity of the single market.”
That is the institutional case in plain language: fewer loopholes, less fragmentation, more consistent oversight, and less room for national freelancing. It is a compelling argument. A single market is supposed to be a single market, not 27 flavors of “close enough.”
But centralization comes with its own baggage. Move too much authority to the EU level and you risk creating a bigger bottleneck, not a cleaner system. Brussels can unify rules, but it can also unify delays. Europe has a talent for solving fragmentation by building a larger bureaucracy to manage it.
What the current token numbers suggest
The unchanged token issuer registers, 0 ARTs and 41 EMTs, are a reminder that MiCA is still early in its market-shaping phase. Stablecoin-style issuance in Europe has not yet exploded, at least not in the numbers reflected here, and that may say more about market maturity than legal design.
Still, the structure is now in place. MiCA gives Europe a framework for crypto services, token issuance, and supervisory coordination. Whether that framework becomes a genuine engine for compliant growth or just a thicker wall of paperwork depends on how consistently it is enforced.
And that is where the real story sits: not in the count alone, but in whether the count keeps rising while standards stay tight enough to mean something.
What this means for crypto firms
For crypto businesses in Europe, the message is simple: get licensed, get your compliance house in order, or get left behind. MiCA is not a suggestion box. It is the new operating environment.
That is good news for firms that want legitimacy, access to the EU market, and a predictable rulebook. It is bad news for the usual crowd of regulatory tourists who built their strategy around loopholes, vague promises, and hoping nobody asked hard questions.
For users, a tougher regime should mean better protection and clearer accountability. That does not guarantee safety, scams and sloppy operators have a way of surviving even in regulated environments, but it is a hell of a lot better than pretending consumer protection happens by magic.
For policymakers, the challenge is balancing consistency with speed. The EU wants a market that is open, competitive, and innovative, but it also wants to stop the race to the cheapest regulator. Those goals can coexist, but only if the rules are applied with discipline instead of theater.
Key takeaways
-
Why does the 321 CASP count matter?
It shows MiCA’s licensing system is actively being populated, but it should be read as a dated snapshot because ESMA updates the register regularly. -
Who actually approves MiCA licenses?
National competent authorities do most of the authorizing and supervising. ESMA maintains the register and pushes supervisory consistency, but does not issue the licenses itself. -
Is July 1, 2026 the deadline everywhere?
No. It is the outer limit for member states that chose the full 18-month transition. Some countries set shorter deadlines, so the timetable varies across the EU. -
Why are France and the ECB pushing back?
They fear uneven national enforcement could encourage a “race to the bottom, ” where firms shop for the easiest regulator instead of meeting a high common standard. -
Could ESMA end up supervising crypto across the EU?
It is being discussed, and the ECB supports it, but any transfer of power would still need formal EU approval and implementation before it becomes reality.
The direction is clear enough: Europe is tightening the screws on crypto, and the old era of improvisation is fading fast. For firms that want long-term access to the EU, the choice is becoming brutally simple: get licensed, or get out of the way.
Further reading
A few useful context pieces on MiCA, the EU register, and the bureaucracy circus around crypto supervision:
- EU authorizes 12 new crypto service providers under MiCA
- Understanding Yahoo's Consent Page
- The State of the ESMA CASP Register
- Markets in Crypto-Assets
- Failure to obtain a MiCA license by July 1, 2026, will mean
- MiCA Deadline Hits July 1: Unlicensed Crypto Firms Face EU
- Malta’s Crypto Framework Slammed by ESMA: MiCA’s First
- ESMA Scrutinizes Malta’s Crypto Rules: Is MiCA’s Future at
