Why MiCA Was Adopted
Until the end of 2024, the regulatory treatment of crypto-assets across the European Union was strikingly inconsistent. Some Member States applied only AML rules, others introduced their own national regimes, and the crypto market evolved in conditions that enabled regulatory arbitrage and eroded investor confidence. In the Czech Republic, a free trade licence, registration with the Financial Analytical Office (FAÚ) as a so-called VASP (Virtual Asset Service Provider), and AML compliance were essentially sufficient. For a globally expanding sector with volumes in the hundreds of billions of euros, this framework was plainly inadequate.
The European Union's response is Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 of the European Parliament and of the Council on markets in crypto-assets — better known as MiCA (Markets in Crypto-Assets). It is the first unified regulatory framework for crypto-assets at EU level, broadly transposing the structure and logic of the MiFID II Directive from the capital markets and applying it — with appropriate adjustments reflecting the specific nature of digital assets — to issuers of crypto-assets and providers of related services.
MiCA pursues four core objectives, from which virtually all the detailed obligations imposed on licensed entities follow:
- legal certainty through uniform rules across the EU,
- investor protection in a segment where it was previously largely absent,
- financial stability (particularly in relation to stablecoins, which have the potential to affect the wider financial system),
- fostering innovation in the European digital finance sector.
Timeline and Czech Implementation
MiCA has become applicable in stages. The rules for issuers of asset-referenced tokens and e-money tokens have applied since 30 June 2024, with the remainder of the Regulation — including the framework for crypto-asset service providers — applying from 30 December 2024.
In the Czech Republic, the key implementing instrument is Act No. 31/2025 Coll., on the digitalisation of the financial market (the "Digital Finance Act"), which entered into force on 15 February 2025. From that date, the CNB became the competent authority in the Czech Republic for the purposes of MiCA — it is responsible for licensing proceedings, ongoing supervision of authorised entities, and enforcement.
That same date marked the end of the previous national regime based on a free trade licence for crypto services. Entities seeking to take advantage of the transitional period and continue their activities until the CNB issues a decision had to file their application no later than the end of July 2025; moreover, since August 2025, natural persons are no longer eligible to provide MiCA-regulated services — only legal entities may apply. Those who filed in time may continue their business under the transitional regime at most until 1 July 2026, or until the CNB issues an earlier decision.
In practical terms, the window for a smooth transition has closed, and new applicants today enter the process without the protection of the transitional regime. Without a final and enforceable authorisation, they simply cannot provide regulated services.
The Three Pillars of MiCA: Types of Authorisation
MiCA does not introduce a single universal licence; rather, it establishes three distinct authorisation regimes, the choice of which depends on the specific activity the applicant intends to carry out. These regimes differ materially in terms of scope of obligations, capital requirements, and the categories of eligible entities. In practice, the first and absolutely critical step for every client is therefore the regulatory classification of the business model — that is, identifying the type of activity intended and the pillar into which it falls.
1. Issuer of Asset-Referenced Tokens (ART)
Asset-Referenced Tokens (ART) are crypto-assets whose value is maintained by reference to a basket of multiple assets — typically a combination of several fiat currencies, commodities, other crypto-assets, or a combination of all of these. Their purpose is to offer holders a relatively stable store of value not tied to a single currency.
Issuing ARTs, offering them to the public, or seeking their admission to trading is permitted only to a person specifically authorised under MiCA, or to a credit institution under the conditions set out in the Regulation. The issuer must satisfy stringent capital requirements (with the minimum amount depending on the nature and volume of the token offered), establish proper management of the reserve of assets backing the token's value, and prepare a crypto-asset white paper — a document functionally akin to a securities prospectus, the content of which is precisely defined by the Regulation.
For so-called significant ARTs (classified as such by the European Banking Authority on the basis of specific criteria), an enhanced regime applies, and direct EBA supervision attaches.
2. Issuer of E-Money Tokens (EMT)
E-Money Tokens (EMT) are crypto-assets whose value is referenced exclusively to a single fiat currency, serving primarily as a means of exchange — effectively a digital equivalent of electronic money. Typical examples are stablecoins pegged 1:1 to the euro or the US dollar.
EMTs may be issued only by a credit institution (bank) or by an electronic money institution authorised under the EMD2 Directive (in the Czech Republic, under the Payments Act). Put differently: anyone wishing to issue a stablecoin in the EMT regime within the EU needs a full banking or EMI licence — MiCA does not grant such authorisation in itself. The licence entails the obligation to publish a white paper, to maintain a reserve of safe, low-risk assets, and to ensure that holders enjoy the right to redeem the token at par value at any time and free of charge.
In practice, this regime is therefore typically accessible to established financial institutions and to fintech projects with the regulatory capacity to bear its requirements.
3. Crypto-Asset Service Provider (CASP) Authorisation
The third — and by far the most common in practice — regime is authorisation as a Crypto-Asset Service Provider (CASP). This is the licensing equivalent of a securities firm under MiFID II, only for the world of crypto-assets. The CASP regime supersedes the previous VASP concept and elevates regulation qualitatively to a much higher level — from mere registration to fully-fledged supervision of the entity's organisational, personnel, capital, and procedural arrangements.
MiCA expressly enumerates ten crypto-asset services falling within the CASP licensing regime. The most significant include custody and administration of crypto-assets on behalf of clients, operation of a crypto-asset trading platform (a crypto exchange), exchange of crypto-assets for funds or for other crypto-assets, execution of orders on behalf of clients, placing of crypto-assets, reception and transmission of orders, providing advice on crypto-assets, portfolio management of crypto-assets, and providing transfer services for crypto-assets.
The applicant specifies in its application which of these services it intends to provide — and this determines both the scope of its obligations and the applicable capital requirement.
Capital Classes of CASP Licences
The key distinguishing feature among CASP licences is the level of required minimum initial capital, which MiCA divides into three classes based on the risk profile of the services provided:
- Class 1 — EUR 50,000. Applies to basic services consisting of advice, reception and transmission of orders, execution of orders, placing of crypto-assets, and provision of transfer services. These are activities in which the provider typically does not hold client assets.
- Class 2 — EUR 125,000. Applies to services in which the provider holds client assets or funds — typically custody and administration of crypto-assets, or exchange of crypto-assets for funds or for other crypto-assets. This corresponds to a higher risk profile and a higher capital requirement.
- Class 3 — EUR 150,000. The highest category, covering the operation of a crypto-asset trading platform (a crypto exchange). Given the systemic significance and complexity of these activities, this is the most demanding licence in terms of capital, personnel, and processes.
The capital minimum, however, is not the only requirement an applicant must satisfy. The CNB may require higher capital in the licensing proceedings where the business model, the projected volume of activities, or the applicant's risk profile so warrants. In our practice, we have repeatedly seen the regulator require substantially higher capitalisation than the formal minimum prescribed by the Regulation.
In addition to initial capital, every applicant must meet requirements concerning personnel and professional suitability (notably for members of management and key function holders — compliance, AML, risk management, IT security), organisational arrangements (segregation of functions, internal controls, conflicts-of-interest management), technical safeguards (cybersecurity in line with the DORA Regulation, outsourcing management), and the documentary framework (internal policies, business continuity plans, an orderly wind-down plan). The volume of documentation expected by the CNB in licensing proceedings typically runs into hundreds of pages.
What MiCA Does Not Cover
In line with the principle of "same activity, same risk, same regulation", MiCA is intended to apply only to those crypto-assets that previously fell outside any regulatory framework. MiCA therefore does not apply:
- to crypto-assets that qualify as financial instruments within the meaning of MiFID II — these remain subject to capital markets regulation (typically tokenised shares and bonds, security tokens);
- to non-fungible tokens (NFTs), provided they are genuinely unique and non-fungible — caution is warranted, however, in cases where "NFT" is merely a marketing label for a de facto fungible crypto-asset (MiCA then applies);
- to fully decentralised DeFi — but only where the service is provided entirely without any intermediary; as soon as a person effectively controls the service, the regulation applies;
- to certain other areas (e.g. central banks, intra-group transactions, certain forms of employee remuneration in crypto-assets).
The classification of a specific project — particularly at the interface of MiCA, MiFID II, AML, and national payment services legislation — is in practice one of the most demanding tasks and not infrequently determines the very viability of the business model. We recommend addressing this as the very first step, well before any product development investment is made.
Practical Recommendations for Applicants
Our experience to date highlights several principles that distinguish successful MiCA projects from those that end at the CNB in protracted requests for further information — or in refusal:
- Regulatory classification at the outset. The most costly mistake is to begin building a product without an answer to the question of which MiCA regime applies — or indeed whether MiCA applies at all. A change of business model midway through implementation is invariably orders of magnitude more expensive than a proper assessment at the greenfield stage.
- Set capital realistically. The formal minimum of EUR 50,000 / 125,000 / 150,000 is the starting point, not the goal. The actual capital requirement depends on the declared business model, and the regulator frequently raises it. Plan for a reserve.
- Build out the personnel structure. The CNB scrutinises closely the expertise, integrity, and time commitment of management and of key function holders (compliance officer, AML officer, risk manager). External "paper" names without genuine engagement will not suffice.
- Documentation is not a formality. Internal policies must be mutually consistent, anchored in the business model, and reflective of actual processes. An experienced regulator — let alone one supported by AI tools — will recognise off-the-shelf policies downloaded from the internet within minutes.
- Account for DORA and AML. MiCA exists within an ecosystem of further regulations — above all the DORA Regulation (digital operational resilience) and AML rules. A MiCA licence application cannot today be properly prepared without simultaneously building DORA and AML compliance.
- Plan ahead. Between the decision to enter the market and obtaining a final and enforceable authorisation, a well-managed project will typically span nine to eighteen months. Financing, contractual arrangements, recruitment, and marketing should be planned accordingly.
Conclusion
MiCA has changed the rules of the game — and the first wave of Czech decisions by the CNB has confirmed it. The market has ceased to be a place where a registration and a trade licence are enough; it has become a segment of financial services with everything that entails. For entrepreneurs, this means a higher barrier to entry, but also a level playing field, EU-wide passporting, and — perhaps most importantly — the kind of client trust that is essential to the continued growth of the sector.
