Poland Could Ban Crypto Pushing Back on EU MiCA Regulation

Last week, Poland’s lower house of parliament (Sejm) passed a government-backed bill called the Crypto-Asset Market Act. The legislation implements the European Union’s crypto laws, namely the Markets in Crypto Assets Regulation (MiCA). Under these rules, the Polish Financial Supervision Authority (KNF) is required to regulate and approve all digital asset firms. One of the challenges of MiCA is that each EU member state can, and has, required varying degrees of compliance under the rules.

In a dramatic twist, the opposition Law and Justice (PIS) party has pushed forward legislation demanding a complete ban on crypto. Apparently, the bill was driven by the failure of the Polish crypto exchange Zondacrypto, in which users lost over $95 million, as well as other alleged transgressions. According to reports, the CEO of the crypto exchange, Przemysław Kral, has fled to Israel, where he holds citizenship.

CI connected with Wojciech Kaszycki, who spent years working and managing regulated financial and payments infrastructure in Europe, including leading Mobilum Technologies. Kaszycki is now the Chief Strategy Officer at BTCS S.A., a publicly listed company operating blockchain validation and digital asset treasury systems. We asked Kaszycki for an update on the status of the crypto market and possible legislation that could undermine digital asset innovation.

Our discussion is shared below.

Why may Poland seek to ban crypto or digital assets? Are there certain firms or institutions advocating a halt to digital asset innovation?

Wojciech Kaszycki: I would not frame it as Poland “seeking to ban digital assets” across the board. I would frame it as a country struggling to decide whether it wants to properly supervise the sector or push the problem aside. There is clearly a more restrictive political impulse in part of the debate, but the practical effect of delay can be just as damaging as an outright ban. If you do not create a usable local regime in time, you do not stop the sector – you simply push serious operators out and leave Polish users dependent on firms licensed elsewhere in the EU. That is why this matters.

Poland’s problem is not crypto itself. It is regulatory uncertainty at exactly the wrong moment. Click to Share

Does the potential ban include digital securities?

Wojciech Kaszycki: Not really in the same way. MiCA does not cover tokenized securities or tokenized deposits. Those remain under existing securities and banking law, and in Europe, that means frameworks like MiFID and the DLT Pilot Regime matter more than MiCA for digital securities. So when people talk about “crypto regulation,” they often mix together very different buckets. A tokenized bond is not treated the same way as a crypto-asset service under MiCA.

What about stablecoins?

Wojciech Kaszycki: Stablecoins are absolutely part of the picture, and in many ways, they are the most strategic part. Under MiCA, stablecoins are already treated specifically through the regimes for asset-referenced tokens and e-money tokens. What is interesting right now is that Europe is not just trying to control stablecoins – it is also starting to realize it needs more of its own, especially euro-denominated ones. Even French policymakers are openly saying Europe needs stronger euro stablecoin capacity because the market is overwhelmingly dollar-based today. So the debate is no longer “stablecoins yes or no.” It is increasingly “whose stablecoins, under what rules, and in which currency.”

Are participants in the digital asset industry now looking to relocate their operations?

Wojciech Kaszycki:  Yes, some already are, or at least they are preparing backup plans. That is just rational behavior. If you are running a serious business and you see that after 1 July 2026, you may not be able to get authorized locally in time, you start looking at other EU jurisdictions where MiCA implementation is clearer, and licensing is actually moving. The real risk for Poland is not that crypto disappears. The real risk is that the better businesses, talent, and tax base relocate, while Polish clients are still served cross-border by firms established elsewhere.

If you do not build a workable local regime, you do not stop the sector, you just export it. Click to Share

Does this highlight a weakness in the EU’s MiCA approach to enabling Fintech innovation?

Wojciech Kaszycki: I think it highlights a weakness in the implementation, not necessarily in the idea behind MiCA itself. MiCA was supposed to create one rulebook and reduce fragmentation. But when the legal framework is European, and the operational reality is still highly national, you get exactly this kind of problem.

A good regulation on paper is not enough if some member states move quickly and others do not. So yes, this does expose a weakness in the EU approach: Europe wants harmonization, but in practice, innovation still gets filtered through local politics, local timing, and local supervisory culture.

MiCA was meant to reduce fragmentation. What we are seeing is that fragmentation can still come back through national politics and timing. Click to Share

As the US appears to be moving forward with bespoke legislation to enable digital asset innovation, how are politicians reconciling this with their intent to impede this sector of Fintech?

Wojciech Kaszycki: That is exactly the contrast people are watching now.

In the U.S., the direction of travel is more bespoke and more commercially minded: there is a market structure bill moving in the Senate, and separate stablecoin legislation is already shaping a dedicated framework.

In Europe, and especially in countries like Poland, the tone is often more cautious and procedural. So the contradiction is easy to see: on one side, policymakers say they want innovation; on the other, delays and restrictive instincts make it harder for serious companies to build. The market notices that very quickly.

Will these bills or some iteration of these bills become law? If so, what happens next?

Wojciech Kaszycki: I think some version of them probably does become law, because the alternative is worse: legal vacuum, forced exits, and Poland falling behind the rest of the EU. But even if a bill passes, that is not the end of the story.

Then comes the harder part: licensing, supervision, market practice, and whether firms actually find the regime workable. If Poland gets this right, it can still keep serious operators onshore. If it gets it wrong, the likely result is simple: the business moves, but the market does not disappear.

The real danger for Poland is not that crypto gets banned. It is that the good companies leave first. Click to Share