MiCA's Article 143 transitional regime — the "grandfathering" period that allowed crypto-asset service providers (CASPs) registered under pre-existing national rules to continue operating while their full authorisation was processed — reached its end on 1 July 2026. From that date, only firms holding full CASP authorisation may lawfully offer crypto services to users across the EU and EEA.
Industry reporting paints a stark picture of readiness. According to coverage from CoinDesk and others, only around 244 CASPs held full authorisation by the deadline, leaving a large majority of previously registered firms without a licence. The knock-on effect, those reports estimate, is that more than 10 million users could be forced to move to an authorised platform as unlicensed venues suspend or restrict services. These are press estimates rather than figures published by the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), and should be treated as directional until confirmed against ESMA's own CASP register.
The stablecoin market has felt the change most visibly. Under MiCA, only authorised e-money tokens and asset-referenced tokens may be offered to the public or admitted to trading on EU-regulated platforms. Tether did not seek MiCA authorisation for USDT, and as a consequence USDT has been removed from MiCA-licensed European exchanges, leaving authorised tokens such as USDC and EURC to occupy the regulated market. For a market segment built on the assumption that the most liquid stablecoin would always be available, that adjustment has proved structural rather than cosmetic. (Per-venue listings are still changing week to week; confirm current status before publication.)
Less visible, but arguably more consequential for compliance functions, is the identity dimension. Every transfer routed through a licensed exchange now carries full originator and beneficiary identity data under the crypto Travel Rule — a requirement that sits in the EU Transfer of Funds Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2023/1113), MiCA's companion instrument, applicable since 30 December 2024, and applied at a zero-euro threshold. No transaction is too small to fall within scope. In practice, the MiCA regime has now pulled crypto firmly into the same identity-data and financial-crime perimeter that governs traditional payments — without the de minimis carve-out that firms on other rails often rely on.
The regime is not static. The European Commission opened a targeted consultation on the review of MiCA on 20 May 2026, with responses due by 31 August 2026, explicitly contemplating an extension of MiCA's reach to tokenisation and to a broader set of stablecoin arrangements. The Commission is due to report to the European Parliament and Council by 30 June 2027 and may, where appropriate, accompany that report with a legislative proposal — the revision the market already calls "MiCA 2." In other words, firms that have just cleared the authorisation bar are already watching it move.
Why the authorisation shortfall is the real headline
The instinct is to frame this as a crypto-market disruption story: exchanges going dark, users scrambling, USDT delisted. Those are all important developments, but they are symptoms of a bigger shift.
The more revealing figure is the number of firms that failed to secure authorisation. If the industry estimates are broadly accurate, most providers that once operated under national registration did not make the transition to MiCA. Whether that reflects supervisory capacity, firms choosing not to apply, or businesses falling short of the new standard remains unclear.
Above all, it says something about MiCA itself. A backlog points to pressure on supervisors; a wave of unsuccessful or withdrawn applications suggests the regime has raised the bar exactly as intended. That is the question worth putting to Europe's competent authorities.
Regulatory implications
For compliance teams, the immediate impact is operational rather than strategic. The Travel Rule now applies to every transfer, regardless of value, making complete and accurate identity data a baseline requirement rather than a threshold obligation. Firms onboarding customers from platforms that lost authorisation should assume a higher level of scrutiny, particularly where the origin of assets or the strength of previous compliance controls is less certain.
MiCA's stablecoin rules deserve the same attention. Product and treasury teams should regularly review which tokens remain authorised, as the current list is unlikely to stay static.
More broadly, MiCA should no longer be viewed primarily as a licensing regime. Authorisation may have dominated the headlines, but day-to-day compliance will increasingly be shaped by identity, transaction monitoring and financial-crime controls. That is where the operational burden now sits.
Reference:
CoinDesk, 29 June 2026 — https://www.coindesk.com/business/2026/06/29/mica-july-1-deadline-could-leave-10-million-crypto-users-searching-for-a-new-platform-in-the-eu
ESMA MiCA activity page — https://www.esma.europa.eu/esmas-activities/digital-finance-and-innovation/markets-crypto-assets-regulation-mica
European Commission, MiCA review consultation (published 20 May 2026, deadline 31 August 2026) — https://finance.ec.europa.eu/regulation-and-supervision/consultations-0/targeted-consultation-review-mica-regulation_en
