Key Highlights
Since the European Union (EU) deadline for crypto licences on 1 July, Binance has been running the most visible test of what a crypto exchange can do in Europe without a European licence. After withdrawing its application in Greece days before the deadline, the exchange kept serving some European customers through reverse solicitation.
This is via a narrow exemption for clients who approach a foreign firm on their own initiative, and routed part of the trading through its entity in Abu Dhabi, which holds a full licence there, as per ADGM official website.
But for Europe’s markets regulator, that licence or changing the way around does nothing. ESMA has a clear MiCA guideline that a firm based outside the EU may not serve or solicit EU clients, and a provider without an EU crypto licence has to wind down. The regulator has since asked Binance to confirm that it is doing exactly that.
However, these are also the two options businesses usually have in mind when they ask me what the alternative to the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA) is for serving European customers. The Binance case supports the answer I have been giving since the deadline: every durable route to EU clients runs through an authorised European provider, your own or a partner’s. It also shows a rule that reaches well beyond Europe: a crypto licence covers the market that issued it, so a business with clients in several markets needs a licence for each of them.
Article 61 of MiCA allows a firm without EU authorisation to serve an EU client only when the service is provided at that client’s own exclusive initiative. In its ESMA guidelines, the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) reads the exemption narrowly and treats almost any marketing that reaches EU residents as solicitation, from websites and apps to social media posts and influencers.
I explain it to clients this way: the moment a firm starts attracting EU residents, whether through advertising, bonuses or a localised app, it needs a MiCA licence. A customer base built over years of advertising and referral campaigns remains a solicited base after the deadline.
MEXC’s case shows what happens once a regulator establishes solicitation. In September 2025, the Dutch Authority for the Financial Markets issued a public warning that MEXC was serving Dutch consumers without a licence.
As evidence that the exchange was targeting the Netherlands, the regulator pointed to its Dutch-language social media marketing and its sponsorship of a local blockchain conference. MEXC is now leaving the Netherlands. Users are being asked to move their assets by 31 October 2026, and final offboarding is set for 16 November. MEXC has named Bybit EU, authorised by Austria’s Financial Market Authority, as its recommended alternative, although nothing migrates automatically and each client has to open and verify a new account.
The exit covers the Netherlands specifically, where the regulator acted. Despite the Dutch warning, MEXC has not added any EU member state, the Netherlands included, to its public list of restricted jurisdictions, last updated in April.
The Dutch case reflects how MiCA is enforced. The ban on unauthorised services applies across the EU, and decisions against a specific firm are taken by national regulators: when asked about Binance, ESMA declined to discuss the exchange and said sanctions are a matter for national authorities.
Once reverse solicitation and offshore licences are off the table, a business that wants EU clients has two lawful routes: partnering with a provider that already holds MiCA authorisation, or getting authorised itself.
For businesses that need to start before a licence of their own is realistic, I usually discuss the first one, often called white label. The business builds the product, the brand and the marketing. An authorised crypto-asset service provider (CASP) provides the service and contracts with every client, because MiCA leaves no other arrangement: the European Commission has confirmed that a CASP cannot appoint third parties to take client orders on its behalf.
The partner route saves the months an authorisation takes, and it already works at scale. Bitpanda runs the crypto offering inside the apps of N26 and Austrian Raiffeisen banks, and on 23 September it announced a framework with Raiffeisen Bank International to reach the bank’s network in Central and Eastern Europe, around 18 million customers. The price of that speed is the client relationship, since every client onboarded this way is legally the partner’s. Before launch, it is worth settling in the contract whether those clients can move with the business if it later obtains its own licence, and on what terms.
The second route, a licence of your own, is slower, and the register shows who moves through it fastest. According to a Block of Fame analysis of ESMA data, the number of listed providers grew from 243 just before the transition period ended to 349 by mid-September, and the number of banks among them doubled to about 80. Banks in general have a shortcut: under Article 60 of MiCA, a bank that already holds an EU licence notifies its regulator, with full documentation of its crypto operations, at least 40 working days before it starts offering crypto services, without going through a separate CASP authorisation.
For a crypto-native firm, the same route starts from zero. That is the imbalance SBSB’s founder and managing partner, Yuliya Barabash, described in July: MiCA asks startups to behave like regulated incumbents before they have proved they belong in the market. In practice, that means having in place before the application what a bank already has: a company in a member state, capital, governance and anti-money laundering (AML) controls. The preparation takes months, and the register shows it can be done, since non-bank firms still make up about three quarters of it.
Both routes into Europe ask a lot: a partner who owns the client relationship, or months of preparation for a licence of your own. For many businesses, that makes Europe the wrong first market—at least for now.
But even licences outside the EU often follows the same territorial rule that keeps Binance out of Europe. That is why, in my practice, the choice of a licence starts with where the target audience lives, and the budget comes second. Three questions help test any jurisdiction on that basis.
Where do your clients live? More and more regulators tie the licence requirement to where the client lives. In Brazil, providers already operating must file for authorisation with the Central Bank by 30 October 2026, and foreign platforms serving Brazilian residents have to move their operations and clients to an authorised institution by the same date. El Salvador’s National Commission of Digital Assets (CNAD) requires registration from foreign firms that actively market their services to clients in the country. Canada requires foreign money services businesses that direct services at Canadians to register with the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC) before they start operating, and so on.
Which market does the licence open? FINTRAC states plainly that registration does not mean it licenses or endorses a business, and trading platforms dealing in crypto assets that qualify as securities or derivatives may also need to register with Canadian securities regulators. That makes Canada a reasonable budget start with clearly defined limits. In Mauritius, the virtual asset rules of the Financial Services Commission (FSC) apply to business carried on in or from the island, so each African or Asian market a Mauritian company targets keeps its own rules. Anjouan offers a fast, inexpensive base for launching a project. Each of these fits a specific task, and a business with clients elsewhere adds the licences those markets require.
How long will the setup hold? Any map of licences drawn today will need redrawing, because the rules are moving in many of the jurisdictions on it. Kazakhstan brought crypto exchangers under National Bank licensing on 1 May 2026, Kyrgyzstan set a minimum capital of 300 million soms for crypto exchanges from 1 July 2026, and Australia has passed a law requiring crypto platforms to hold an Australian Financial Services Licence (AFSL) from April 2027.
The part of a structure that relies on the absence of rules is moving too. Panama, a common choice for that part, has no crypto licence yet and applies only AML rules to crypto businesses, but in December 2025 it signed the agreement on the Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework (CARF), the international standard for exchanging tax information on crypto, and licensing bills are pending. That part of any structure deserves an expiry date in the business plan.
The table applies these questions to the jurisdictions that come up most often in my licensing conversations.
| Jurisdiction | What the licence covers | Status and key dates | Entry bar |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brazil | Services to Brazilian residents, including by foreign platforms | Operating providers file for Central Bank authorisation by 30 October 2026 |
Minimum capital of R$10.8–37.2 million, depending on the services |
| Australia | Crypto platforms serving Australian clients | AFSL required from April 2027, followed by a six-month transition | Full financial services licence from the Australian Securities and Investments Commission |
| Canada | Money services directed at clients in Canada | FINTRAC registration, mandatory for foreign firms; some platforms also register with securities regulators |
No FINTRAC fee; AML compliance programme required |
| Kazakhstan | Crypto providers outside the Astana International Financial Centre, which keeps its own regime |
National Bank licensing of exchangers and registration of platforms since 1 May 2026 |
Capital, infrastructure and AML requirements set in law |
| Mauritius | Business carried on in or from Mauritius | Licence from the FSC | Minimum own funds from 2 million Mauritian rupees (broker-dealer) to 6.5 million (marketplace) |
| El Salvador | Services in El Salvador, including by foreign firms marketing there |
CNAD registration; the law gives CNAD up to 20 business days to decide on a complete application |
Local company and CNAD review |
| Panama | No dedicated crypto licence | AML obligations only; CARF agreement signed in December 2025; licensing bills pending |
Lowest today, likely to rise once a licensing law passes |
| Anjouan | Activity carried on from Anjouan | Licence from the Anjouan Offshore Finance Authority, typically in one to two months |
Low set-up cost, suited to a fast launch |
Four of the nine rows describe rules adopted or brought into force in 2026, which is why the practical conclusion I give clients planning beyond Europe is to combine. A licence for each market that matters, an inexpensive base where the rules allow it, and a regular check of every piece against the third question make a structure that can adapt as those rows keep changing.
Brazil’s filing deadline falls on 30 October, and MEXC completes its Dutch offboarding on 16 November. Binance has said it remains committed to a MiCA licence in another member state without naming which one, and Australia’s regime takes effect in April 2027. I expect Binance’s return to Europe, if it comes, to run through that application, and I expect Brazil and Australia to push more global platforms into the country-by-country licensing that MiCA made visible.
For the businesses I advise, the practical test of a licence strategy after these three months is how closely two maps overlap: where the clients live and where the licences were issued. Every gap between them is a market served on borrowed time.
Daria Lysenko More Stories
Share