MiCA transitional regime: where the European crypto-asset market stands eighteen months after application.

01 — What changed on 30 December 2024

On 30 December 2024, Title V of Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 — Markets in Crypto-Assets, commonly referred to as MiCA — entered into force for crypto-asset service providers (CASPs). From that date, the provision of crypto-asset services in the European Union is reserved to entities that have either obtained authorisation as a CASP under Article 59 MiCA, or that operate under the transitional regime established by Article 143 of the same Regulation.

The terminology itself reflects the shift. The acronym VASP — virtual asset service provider, originating in the FATF Recommendations and adopted by national registries across Europe before MiCA — is no longer the operative term within the European Union. The correct designation under MiCA is CASP, and any reference to VASP today should be limited to jurisdictions outside the European Union or to operators still benefiting from the transitional regime.

02 — How the transitional regime works

Article 143(3) MiCA permits crypto-asset service providers that were lawfully providing services in a Member State before 30 December 2024, under that Member State's national framework, to continue doing so during a transitional period that ends on 1 July 2026, or earlier if the applicable national authority decides on the operator's CASP authorisation request before that date.

Two clarifications are important. First, the transitional regime does not extend automatically: each Member State has discretion under Article 143(3) to set a shorter window. Spain, for instance, transposed the regime in a way that requires registered VASPs to submit their CASP authorisation application within a defined sub-window, failing which the right to continue operating under the transition is lost. Lithuania, which has historically been the most active European jurisdiction for crypto-asset licensing, has issued specific guidance through the Bank of Lithuania on the conversion of legacy VASP registrations into CASP authorisations.

Second, the transitional regime is a permission to continue, not a permission to expand. Operators that benefit from it cannot extend their service offering beyond what was already authorised under the prior national framework. Adding new services — for example, moving from custody-only to dealing-on-own-account — requires the full CASP authorisation procedure before the additional service can be provided.

03 — What this means for cross-border structuring

For corporate operations that involve a crypto-asset perimeter — typically acquisitions of existing VASPs, joint ventures, or the design of new vehicles — the choice between operating under the transitional regime and proceeding directly to CASP authorisation is a strategic decision, not a procedural one.

The transitional regime offers continuity but produces a discount in transaction value. A buyer acquiring a VASP that has not yet obtained CASP authorisation is acquiring a position that will expire on 1 July 2026 unless authorisation is secured in the interim. The price normally reflects that uncertainty. Conversely, a fully authorised CASP commands a premium because the regulatory perimeter is locked in and transferable as part of the transaction structure, subject to the suitability assessment of the new controllers under Article 81 MiCA.

For new corporate vehicles, the decision tree is simpler. Establishing a new operation under MiCA from this point onward requires CASP authorisation from inception; there is no transitional shelter available for entities incorporated after 30 December 2024. The relevant question is therefore the jurisdiction of authorisation rather than the regulatory route.

04 — Where we sit

GLOBALBRIDGE coordinates the corporate and documentary work that precedes a CASP authorisation procedure: corporate structuring, beneficial ownership documentation, source-of-funds reconstruction, and the operational design that the licensed legal and regulatory advisers — in our case typically Regulated United Europe in Lithuania, working alongside the local counsel of the jurisdiction concerned — will then formalise before the competent authority.

We do not present applications. We prepare the matter so that the licensed counterparties who present them are reviewing a file built to the standard that withstands external scrutiny.

This note is issued by GLOBALBRIDGE for general informational purposes. It is not legal, regulatory, tax or investment advice. Any reliance on the matters discussed should be confirmed with a licensed professional in the relevant jurisdiction.