EU banks double their MiCA presence to 80

Banks have doubled their presence on the European Union’s MiCA register to about 80 institutions in less than three months, raising their share of listed crypto providers to nearly 23%.

According to an analysis of European Securities and Markets Authority register data, banks accounted for almost one in four listed crypto-asset service providers as of Sep. 16, up from about one in six on June 26.

The number of banks listed in the register rose by approximately 100% during the period, while the full group of crypto-asset service providers increased by about 44%. Banks therefore gained market share even as crypto exchanges, custodians and other non-bank firms continued to enter the regulated EU market.

Non-bank providers still make up most of the register. Their number increased from about 203 to 269 between the two dates, but their share fell from roughly 84% to 77% because banks entered at a faster rate.

ESMA’s interim MiCA register, last updated on Sep. 16, includes authorized or notified service providers whose information was submitted by national regulators. ESMA publishes a new version each week, so recently approved or notified providers may not appear immediately.

German banks account for much of the MiCA growth

Germany supplied many of the new banking entries, with the register adding commercial lenders as well as institutions from the country’s Volksbank, Raiffeisenbank and VR Bank networks.

Deutsche Bank is among the latest large lenders preparing regulated digital-asset services. The bank announced plans on Wednesday to offer crypto custody to institutional and corporate clients in Europe, while a spokesperson told Cointelegraph that it expects MiCA approval for the service in October.

The participation of regional cooperative banks shows that Germany’s expansion is not confined to global financial groups. Local institutions that already serve retail and business customers are also adding regulated crypto services through their existing banking structures.

In August, crypto.news reported six additions from Germany’s cooperative banking network: Raiffeisenbank Aidlingen, Ihre Volksbank, VR Bank Mittelfranken Mitte, Volksbank Euskirchen, VR Bank Ried Überwald and Volksbank Backnang.

At the time, Germany had 79 authorized crypto-asset service providers, compared with 35 in France and 29 in the Netherlands. The six additions raised the EU-wide count to 331, before another 18 providers brought the Sep. 16 register total to 349.

Germany’s earlier entries included Raiffeisenbank Falkenstein Wörth, Spar und Kreditbank Rheinstetten, VR Bank Augsburg Ostallgäu and JT Technologies. BNY’s Belgian banking subsidiary had also entered the register with permission to provide crypto custody and transfer services.

Service permissions vary among the listed institutions. A place on the register does not mean every provider can offer the same products because MiCA separately covers custody, crypto transfers, trading platforms, order execution, portfolio management and exchanges between crypto assets and funds.

MiCA gives banks a separate entry route

Banks do not follow the same authorization process as companies created specifically to offer crypto services.

Under Article 60 of MiCA, an EU credit institution may provide crypto-asset services after sending the required information to its home regulator at least 40 working days before starting the activity. A crypto-native company must instead apply for authorization as a crypto-asset service provider under Article 62.

The notification must describe the services the bank intends to provide and include information on governance, internal controls, risk management, security arrangements and the protection of client assets. The regulator reviews whether the submission is complete before the services begin.

Existing banking authorization does not remove the operational requirements attached to crypto custody, trading or transfers. It does, however, allow a credit institution to extend its regulated business without completing the full CASP application used by non-bank firms.

Banks also enter the sector with compliance teams, customer-verification procedures, capital resources and reporting systems already in place. Crypto companies must build or acquire many of the same controls to obtain and retain authorization.

A July report on MiCA compliance costs found that continuing duties covering governance, capital, market conduct, complaints, cybersecurity and anti-money laundering could place more pressure on small providers. The report said such costs could lead some firms to pursue bank partnerships, acquisitions or sales.

Commenting on comparable rules planned in Britain, Morgan Lewis partner Steven Lightstone said crypto firms would be “treated like any normal traditional financial institution.” Banks already operate many of the governance and financial-crime systems required under such regimes.

MiCA has reduced the gap between banks and crypto firms

MiCA’s passporting system allows an authorized provider to serve customers across the EU after securing approval in one member state, although national regulators remain responsible for granting authorizations and receiving bank notifications.

Full enforcement followed the end of the EU transition period on July 1. ESMA instructed providers without authorization to stop covered services, follow their wind-down plans and help customers transfer assets to an authorized business or a self-hosted wallet.

More than 3,000 crypto businesses had operated through earlier national registration systems, while only 194 had obtained MiCA approval by May. The register reached 309 providers by July 23, 331 in August and 349 by Sep. 16.

Banks accounted for around 40 of the 243 entries recorded in late June. By mid-September, their number had reached about 80, meaning they supplied roughly 40 of the 106 net additions made during the period.

Non-bank firms added approximately 66 entries during the same window, leaving them well ahead in total number but behind banks in growth rate. Their falling percentage does not mean providers left the register in net terms; it resulted from banks increasing their numbers more quickly.

US banks follow a different regulatory structure

American banks can also provide some digital-asset services, although the United States does not have an equivalent to MiCA’s single authorization and passporting framework.

In May 2025, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency clarified custody authority for national banks and federal savings associations. Interpretive Letter 1184 confirmed that regulated institutions may execute purchases and sales of crypto held in custody when directed by customers.

The OCC also allows banks to outsource permitted crypto activities, including custody and execution, to third parties if they maintain suitable third-party risk controls. Institutions must still conduct the services safely and comply with all applicable laws.

Unlike MiCA, the U.S. approach divides oversight among federal and state agencies according to the institution, asset, and service involved. MiCA places covered EU crypto services under a common rulebook, while allowing an already regulated credit institution to enter through the 40-working-day notification procedure.