Uncategorized
After the MiCA Transitional Period: Non-CASP Operating Models Require Careful Structuring
After the MiCA Transitional Period: Non-CASP Operating Models Require Careful Structuring
After the MiCA Transitional Period: Non-CASP Operating Models Require Careful Structuring
30 July 2026 · Baltentra Legal
The maximum EU transitional period under MiCA ended on 1 July 2026. Previously eligible providers can no longer rely on that transitional basis to continue providing crypto-asset services without authorisation.
No general agency route for unauthorised providers
MiCA does not create a general framework allowing an authorised CASP to appoint an unauthorised agent to provide crypto-asset services on its behalf. Where the appointed party itself performs a regulated crypto-asset service, that party may require its own CASP authorisation.
Non-CASP participation is not automatically prohibited
The end of the transition does not mean that every commercial role connected to crypto-assets is prohibited. Some models may be structured so that an unlicensed company remains outside the regulated service, while an authorised provider performs and remains responsible for the crypto-asset service.
That outcome depends on the actual operating model. The customer journey, communications, contractual allocation, control over the service, handling of instructions and funds, branding, technology and responsibility for regulated decisions all need to be assessed together.
Substance prevails over labels
Calling a party a marketing partner, introducer, technology provider or agent does not determine the regulatory result. The central question is whether that party is in substance providing a crypto-asset service within MiCA.
A non-CASP model may be appropriate as a carefully limited and controlled structure. It should not be used as a substitute for authorisation where the business seeks independence, direct customer control and scalable provision of regulated services. In many cases, CASP authorisation remains the more robust long-term route.
The maximum EU transitional period under MiCA ended on 1 July 2026. Previously eligible providers can no longer rely on that transitional basis to continue providing crypto-asset services without authorisation.
No general agency route for unauthorised providers
MiCA does not create a general framework allowing an authorised CASP to appoint an unauthorised agent to provide crypto-asset services on its behalf. Where the appointed party itself performs a regulated crypto-asset service, that party may require its own CASP authorisation.
Non-CASP participation is not automatically prohibited
The end of the transition does not mean that every commercial role connected to crypto-assets is prohibited. Some models may be structured so that an unlicensed company remains outside the regulated service, while an authorised provider performs and remains responsible for the crypto-asset service.
That outcome depends on the actual operating model. The customer journey, communications, contractual allocation, control over the service, handling of instructions and funds, branding, technology and responsibility for regulated decisions all need to be assessed together.
Substance prevails over labels
Calling a party a marketing partner, introducer, technology provider or agent does not determine the regulatory result. The central question is whether that party is in substance providing a crypto-asset service within MiCA.
A non-CASP model may be appropriate as a carefully limited and controlled structure. It should not be used as a substitute for authorisation where the business seeks independence, direct customer control and scalable provision of regulated services. In many cases, CASP authorisation remains the more robust long-term route.
The maximum EU transitional period under MiCA ended on 1 July 2026. Previously eligible providers can no longer rely on that transitional basis to continue providing crypto-asset services without authorisation.
No general agency route for unauthorised providers
MiCA does not create a general framework allowing an authorised CASP to appoint an unauthorised agent to provide crypto-asset services on its behalf. Where the appointed party itself performs a regulated crypto-asset service, that party may require its own CASP authorisation.
Non-CASP participation is not automatically prohibited
The end of the transition does not mean that every commercial role connected to crypto-assets is prohibited. Some models may be structured so that an unlicensed company remains outside the regulated service, while an authorised provider performs and remains responsible for the crypto-asset service.
That outcome depends on the actual operating model. The customer journey, communications, contractual allocation, control over the service, handling of instructions and funds, branding, technology and responsibility for regulated decisions all need to be assessed together.
Substance prevails over labels
Calling a party a marketing partner, introducer, technology provider or agent does not determine the regulatory result. The central question is whether that party is in substance providing a crypto-asset service within MiCA.
A non-CASP model may be appropriate as a carefully limited and controlled structure. It should not be used as a substitute for authorisation where the business seeks independence, direct customer control and scalable provision of regulated services. In many cases, CASP authorisation remains the more robust long-term route.