As of July 1, the transition period for crypto-asset service providers under the European Union’s Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation, or MiCA, has formally ended. From that point forward, only firms that have secured the relevant CASP authorization may, in principle, continue to offer services such as custody, exchange, order execution, transfer and trading-related operations to users across the EU. For the European crypto market, this marks the point at which MiCA shifts from a transitional licensing framework into active enforcement.
Although MiCA’s rules for CASPs started applying at the end of 2024, the past year was largely a buffer period in which firms adjusted corporate structures, prepared applications and aligned internal controls with the new regime. With that grace period now over, platforms that failed to complete authorization face much sharper pressure, including business downsizing, customer migration and, in some cases, a gradual retreat from the EU market.
MiCA separates issuer regulation from CASP regulation
MiCA, short for Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation, was designed to create a unified regulatory framework across the EU’s 27 member states. Its scope extends across the issuance and servicing chain for crypto assets, including stablecoins, trading, custody, exchange, order handling, transfers and related service provision. The central policy goal is to replace fragmented national approaches with a common rulebook covering licensing, governance, capital, risk management, disclosure and customer asset protection.
At the highest level, MiCA focuses on two major categories of regulated entities. The first is crypto-asset issuers, especially issuers of asset-referenced tokens, or ARTs, and e-money tokens, or EMTs. ARTs generally refer to multi-asset-referenced stablecoins, while EMTs are more closely associated with single-fiat-linked stablecoins such as USDC. These issuers are subject to white paper disclosure, reserve arrangements, governance obligations and ongoing compliance standards.
The second category is crypto-asset service providers, or CASPs. This is the part of MiCA most directly relevant to exchanges, custodians, brokers, order execution firms and transfer service providers. In this segment, the regulatory focus is not on token issuance but on how firms deliver crypto-related services to customers, including trading access, safekeeping, exchange functions, order execution, investment advice, portfolio management and transfers.
CASP authorization is activity-based, not a single exchange license
One of the most important distinctions under MiCA is that CASP authorization should not be read as a single, universal exchange license. A platform does not become fully authorized for every crypto business line merely by obtaining CASP status. Instead, MiCA authorizes firms based on the exact service categories for which they apply and are approved. In practice, that means two authorized CASPs may have very different regulatory permissions.
The source article breaks the framework into 10 service codes from a to j. Category a covers custody and administration of crypto-assets on behalf of clients. Category b covers the operation of a trading platform. Category c covers exchange of crypto-assets for funds. Category d covers exchange of crypto-assets for other crypto-assets. Category e covers execution of orders on behalf of clients. Category f covers placement of crypto-assets. Category g covers reception and transmission of orders. Category h covers advice on crypto-assets. Category i covers portfolio management on crypto-assets. Category j covers transfer services for crypto-assets on behalf of clients.
This service-by-service structure is crucial because it defines what a platform may actually do inside the EU. A firm may be allowed to custody assets, process fiat conversions and facilitate crypto exchanges, but if it lacks category b authorization, that does not automatically mean it may operate a multilateral trading platform. According to the article, there are currently 279 MiCA CASP-authorized entities. Of those, around 222 provide major trading-related services such as exchange or order execution, yet only 18 have the specific b-category authorization required to operate a crypto-asset trading platform.
Class 1, 2 and 3 refer to capital thresholds
The other key layer in the MiCA structure is the classification of minimum own funds requirements under Annex IV. These are commonly referred to as Class 1, Class 2 and Class 3. They are not separate licenses, but capital categories linked to the risk profile and operational complexity of the authorized services.
Class 1 applies to categories e, f, g, h, i and j. That includes order execution, placement, order reception and transmission, investment advice, portfolio management and transfer services. The minimum capital requirement for this group is EUR 50,000. These activities are generally seen as lower-risk than running a custody-heavy or exchange-heavy platform because they do not necessarily involve direct safekeeping of large customer balances or the operation of a trading venue.
Class 2 extends beyond Class 1 by adding categories a, c and d. In other words, it captures custody, exchange of crypto-assets for funds and exchange of crypto-assets for other crypto-assets, on top of the basic brokerage-style and transfer services. The minimum capital requirement rises to EUR 125,000, reflecting the fact that firms at this level are directly handling customer assets and may be using their own capital or internal liquidity pools in exchange transactions.
Class 3 is the highest tier because it includes category b, the operation of a trading platform. It may consist solely of b in some cases, or it may combine b with part or all of the services seen in Class 2. This is the tier that comes closest to what the market would typically think of as a full exchange business. The minimum capital requirement for Class 3 is EUR 150,000. As a result, determining what an exchange can legally do under MiCA requires more than checking whether it is licensed; observers must also examine the exact service codes and capital class attached to that authorization.
Only 18 entities currently hold the key trading platform authorization
Based on the ESMA update dated July 3, 2026 and cited in the article, only 18 entities currently hold Class 3 authorization that includes category b, the operation of a trading platform. The list named in the article includes OKX, Gate.io EU, Kraken, BSDex, flatexDEGIRO / 360T, PAYMIUM, Coinmate, Webot, RULEMATCH, Bitstamp, Kanga Exchange EU, Anycoin, Revolut Crypto, ZBX, Bitvavo, One Trading, zerohash Europe and FIRI AS.
Among the better-known names, OKX obtained MiCA CASP authorization through its Malta entity, OKX Europe Limited, on January 27, 2025. Its service codes are listed as a, b, c, d, e, f, g, i and j, giving it one of the broader Class 3 permission sets in the article. Kraken, by contrast, obtained b-category authorization through its Irish entity Payward Global Solutions Limited on June 25, 2025, while also maintaining a separate Class 2 service entity in Ireland with a different permission perimeter. Bitstamp received authorization through Bitstamp Europe S.A. in Luxembourg on May 15, 2025, with service codes a, b, c, d, e, g and j.
The 18 firms are not all alike in practical scope. Some hold a relatively narrow package centered on trading platform operation, while others combine platform operation with custody, fiat exchange, crypto-to-crypto exchange, order execution, placement or transfer services. The result is a fragmented but more transparent compliance landscape in which “licensed in Europe” no longer means the same thing across all market participants.
Most major platforms remain concentrated in Class 2
Compared with the small group of Class 3 holders, a larger number of recognizable global and regional crypto brands appear in the Class 2 bucket. The article identifies Coinbase, Kraken’s separate Irish entity, Bybit EU, Crypto.com, Gemini, Bitpanda, KuCoin EU, Blockchain.com, eToro Crypto, Robinhood Europe, Bullish Europe, Backpack EU, Strike Europe, FalconX, APLO and MoonPay as examples.
Coinbase, for example, obtained authorization through Coinbase Luxembourg S.A. on June 20, 2025, with service codes a, c, d, e, f, g and j. Bybit EU was authorized through Bybit EU GmbH in Austria on May 28, 2025, with service codes a, c, d, f and j. Crypto.com received authorization through Malta-based Foris DAX MT Limited on January 27, 2025, with service codes a, c, d, e, g and j. These approvals indicate broad operational capacity in custody and exchange-related services, but not necessarily the right to operate a MiCA-defined trading platform.
Other firms show even more specialized structures. Bitpanda has authorized entities in both Austria and Malta, with the Austrian entity including placement services while the Maltese one does not. eToro Crypto’s code set includes h and i, meaning it also covers investment advice and portfolio management. Robinhood Europe is listed with a, e, g and j, a profile tilted toward custody, order execution, order transmission and transfer services. The broader takeaway is that many prominent platforms are already inside the MiCA system, but not in the top-tier category that includes category b.
Several major global exchanges are still absent from the ESMA table cited
The article also highlights a group of large international platforms that, based on the ESMA CASP authorization table referenced by the author, do not yet have a clearly corresponding MiCA CASP-authorized entity listed. Those names include Binance, Bitget, MEXC, HTX / Huobi, Upbit, Nexo, Deribit, Bitfinex, Poloniex, Phemex, BingX, BitMart, LBank and CoinEx.
That absence does not automatically prove that every such platform has fully exited the European market, but it does indicate that no clearly matching MiCA CASP entity was visible in the referenced public authorization table at the time of writing. As MiCA moves deeper into full enforcement, the next phase of competition in Europe may depend less on branding and liquidity alone and more on how each platform restructures its regional entity, applies for authorizations and narrows or expands its service perimeter.
In that sense, MiCA’s real impact goes beyond the simple question of whether a firm is licensed. The decisive issue is which services it is licensed to provide. Service codes now define the actual business model a platform can legally run in Europe, the obligations it must meet and the type of users and products it can serve. With the transition period over, the European crypto market is entering a regime in which licensing breadth, capital thresholds and operational permissions will increasingly shape market share.