MiCA will produce winners and losers across all of Europe – I fear for Poland’s future

The EU’s Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation, or MiCA, has been heralded as a breakthrough: finally, one rulebook for all 27 member states. On paper, it’s a milestone that promises to end years of uncertainty, offering clarity for investors, businesses, and regulators.

Beneath the optimism lies a harsher truth: MiCA will not be an equaliser. It will create winners and losers, and unless policymakers change course, Poland is on track to fall firmly into the latter category.

You might also like: MiCA won’t shape the future of RWA tokenization | Opinion

Let’s be clear, regulation is not the enemy. For years, crypto operated in a grey zone, plagued by mistrust and uneven protections. MiCA’s requirements, from wallet segregation to audits and the travel rule, bring crypto closer to the mainstream financial system.

Done right, this builds confidence, but regulation that is too heavy, too costly, or too complex risks becoming a moat that keeps small domestic players out, while entrenching the dominance of global giants. That is exactly what Poland faces today.

Poland’s gold-plated problem

MiCA sets the baseline, but in Poland, the draft implementation goes further. It’s a textbook case of gold-plating. Licensing can cost between €400,000 and €800,000, alongside a mandatory €500,000 in initial capital and advanced compliance systems. For startups and mid-sized exchanges, these numbers are not guardrails; they are insurmountable roadblocks.

Polish retail crypto adoption continues to grow, with cryptocurrency market revenue set to be $1.3 billion in 2025, and the user penetration rate for crypto has grown by 19.32% this year alone, yet Industry voices warn that up to 90% of Polish exchanges could vanish by the end of 2025. Some may call this consolidation, but it feels more like annihilation when you’re on ground zero. We will watch countless entrepreneurial innovators get washed down the drain, and it will be the global platforms, such as Binance, Coinbase, and others, who can afford armies of lawyers and compliance staff to ‘win’ at regulation.

Winners and losers

For those ‘generation MiCA’ firms that are starting now, there will be many winners in places that haven’t been well represented on the global stage. Smaller EU nations that adopt MiCA in a balanced, business-friendly way from day one could become the new hubs of European crypto.

Estonia, Cyprus, and Lithuania — countries once considered peripheral — are now magnets for companies seeking proportionate, affordable routes to licensing. MiCA gives them the credibility they once lacked. If those firms get it right, these “underdogs” could turn into household names, leapfrogging larger economies weighed down by bureaucracy.

That’s the paradox: MiCA could finally level the playing field for Europe — but for the playing to first be levelled, blood must be spilt.

Why Poland can’t afford to lose

Poland has one of the largest crypto user bases in Central and Eastern Europe. It has entrepreneurial talent, growing capital markets, and a tech-savvy population. But these early adopter advantages will mean nothing if its pioneering crypto firms are pushed into extinction.

Without local champions, Poland risks becoming merely a consumer market for foreign platforms. Fees may rise, choice may shrink, and innovation will migrate elsewhere. Instead of exporting fintech success stories, Poland could end up importing other countries’ infrastructure — and risk a crypto brain drain of dramatic proportions.

Contrast Poland’s approach with the United States. Whatever one thinks of Donald Trump, his GENIUS Act is, well, genius in aligning regulation with national interest. By requiring stablecoins to be backed with U.S. bonds, the law not only legitimises the market but also creates a new demand stream for American debt. Crypto policy becomes fiscal policy, and innovation becomes strategy.

Europe, by comparison, risks letting MiCA become a defensive measure: safe, bureaucratic, and unimaginative. That may protect consumers, but it won’t create European champions.

Regulation should not kill innovation

The purpose of MiCA was never to eliminate local players; it was to bring order and build trust. If Poland implements the directive with disproportionate costs, it will miss the bigger picture: that regulation should empower entrepreneurs, not exile them.

Yes, crypto needed rules. But rules must be smart, scalable, and supportive. Otherwise, MiCA becomes a passport only for the privileged — while the rest pack their bags and drain the losing nations of their talent.

Poland now stands at a crossroads. It can choose to interpret MiCA pragmatically, trimming the gold-plating and lowering the astronomical entry costs, thereby giving its innovators a fair chance to thrive. Or it can cling to overregulation and watch 90% of its exchanges disappear.

Regulation should never come at the expense of building regional champions. If MiCA is to succeed, it must not just protect consumers but also enable Europe’s next fintech success stories.

Smaller states are already seizing the moment. Poland cannot afford to stand still and rest on its legacy crypto industry. In the new European crypto order, the winners will not simply be those who comply; it will be those who build and thrive off newfound clarity. If Poland doesn’t seize this opportunity now, it will lose a generation of talent to Europe’s first adopters.

Read more: What’s missing from MiCA’s comprehensive crypto manifesto? | Opinion