ESMA’s public statement on the matter is unconditional on this point: unauthorised CASPs must immediately stop onboarding new EU clients and limit any further activity to actions necessary to sell, transfer or close out existing clients’ positions – regardless of whether the relevant Member State had adjusted its national law to MiCA. There is no exemption that allows a firm previously operating under a national transitional regime to retain its existing EU client base once that regime lapses.

Source: ESMA | Date: 2026-06-23
Link

A separate, and much narrower, question is whether a third-country firm that was never registered or authorised in the EU at all can still serve an EU client who approaches it entirely on their own initiative. This is the reverse solicitation exemption under Article 61 of MiCA, and it is the subject of ESMA’s guidelines (ESMA35-1872330276-2030). It is not a route back into the market for firms winding down former transitional-regime relationships – it applies, case by case, only to genuinely unprompted, one-off contact initiated by the client, not to an ongoing relationship that already exists.

Source: ESMA | Date: 2025-02-26
Link

What counts as „solicitation” is defined broadly

Under Article 61 of MiCA, a third-country firm loses the benefit of the exemption the moment it is deemed to have solicited an EU client, rather than been approached by one. ESMA’s guidelines define solicitation in a deliberately broad, technology-neutral way: it covers not only direct advertising but also country-specific SEO strategies, geo-targeted digital ads, sponsorship of EU or Member State sporting events, the use of remunerated influencers, and websites in an official EU language that is not customary in international finance, without a legitimate commercial rationale unrelated to targeting EU clients.

ESMA also notes that even sponsoring an international sporting competition involving EU teams or athletes may amount to solicitation for the purposes of Article 61. This does not prohibit such sponsorship, but it does prevent the firm from relying on the reverse solicitation exemption.

Solicitation carried out by a third party acting on the firm’s behalf — including informally, without a written contract – is treated the same as solicitation by the firm itself.

„Client’s own exclusive initiative” is construed narrowly

Even where the client genuinely makes the initial approach, the exemption remains narrowly confined to that specific client-initiated relationship. ESMA stresses that reverse solicitation must be assessed on the facts of each case, and contractual disclaimers cannot override the actual circumstances. The timing of any subsequent communication is also relevant: marketing or promotional messages sent after the initial transaction – including push notifications encouraging clients to return to the platform or trade additional assets – may indicate that the relationship has evolved into active solicitation rather than remaining based on the client’s exclusive initiative. Article 61(2) allows a third-country firm to market crypto-assets or services of the same type only in the context of the original client-initiated transaction, not as an ongoing marketing relationship.

The guidelines also make clear that the concept of crypto-assets of the „same type” must be interpreted narrowly and assessed case by case. They include a non-exhaustive list of crypto-asset categories that should not normally be regarded as being of the same type, including utility tokens, asset-referenced tokens and electronic money tokens.

Supervisors are actively looking for circumvention

The guidelines also instruct national competent authorities to actively monitor for firms attempting to disguise solicitation as reverse solicitation – through SEO and social media monitoring tools, cooperation with other authorities (including tax authorities and police), and follow-up on client complaints or whistle-blower reports. This is not a passive compliance framework; ESMA’s annex lists an extensive set of practical circumvention scenarios competent authorities are told to watch for.

Compliance across the EU and Baltic states

As of ESMA’s latest compliance table, most EU competent authorities, including the Bank of Lithuania, Latvijas Banka and Estonian Finantsinspektsioon, have confirmed compliance with the reverse solicitation guidelines. The remaining exceptions are procedural rather than substantive: Belgium, Poland and Romania are currently listed as „non-compliant by default” because the competent authority responsible for MiCA supervision has not yet been formally designated.

Source: ESMA | Date: 2026-06-29
Link

Practical takeaway

For EU clients of firms that were operating under national transitional regimes, the position is straightforward: those clients cannot be retained, and firms must wind down and inform them of a deadline to withdraw, transfer or reallocate their assets. Reverse solicitation is not a substitute business model or a way to preserve that client base – it applies only to case-by-case, genuinely unprompted contact from a client to a firm with no prior EU registration, and the burden of proof sits with the firm to demonstrate each instance was truly self-initiated. Any ongoing marketing, cross-selling, or automated re-engagement is a clear signal that the exemption does not apply.

How ECOVIS ProventusLaw can help crypto platforms

At ECOVIS ProventusLaw, we advise firms navigating MiCA implementation across the EEA. Among our recent clients: Match Networks Ltd., Proof Space Pte. Ltd., Aethir Network Foundation Company, Trek Technologies SIA, Trek Labs UAB (Backpack Token) and others.

ECOVIS ProventusLaw is a top-tier law firm operating across Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia and is part of the ECOVIS International network, which is present in more than 90 countries worldwide. The firm has helped clients secure more than 40 FinTech licenses end to end.

The post Reverse Solicitation After MiCA’s Transitional Period: An Exception, Not an Exit Strategy appeared first on ECOVIS ProventusLaw.

A MiCA licence refers to authorisation for crypto-asset service providers (CASPs) under the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA), which introduced a unified regulatory framework across the EU and EEA. The regime was implemented in phases: stablecoin rules (e-money tokens and asset-referenced tokens) applied from 30 June 2024, followed by the full CASP framework on 30 December 2024. Existing market participants were granted a transitional period to obtain authorisation, which ended on 1 July 2026. From that date, only CASPs authorised under MiCA may operate in the EU/EEA.

Market Outcome After 1 July 2026

By 1 July 2026:

• 244 CASP authorisations had been issued across the EEA
• An estimated 75–80% of pre-MiCA platforms are exiting or have exited the European market
• Greece, Hungary, Poland and Romania had not issued any MiCA licences by the deadline
• Germany, the Netherlands, and France lead the ESMA register
• Latvia issued 7 crypto authorisations in the last two months alone

Poland remains a special case, as it still lacks a full national framework aligned with pan-European licensing standards, and the proposed legislation has been rejected three times by the president. This has led to a cautious approach — some entities are limiting their activity, asking clients to transfer assets, or considering relocation to other European jurisdictions where licensing processes are already functioning.

ESMA Update: Requirements for Unauthorised Platforms

On 23 June 2026, the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) set out requirements for platforms lacking MiCA authorisation (see ESMA statement for full details https://www.esma.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2026-06/ESMA75-113276571-1710_Public_Statement_MiCA_transitional_period_ends.pdf).

Unauthorised CASPs must immediately stop onboarding EU clients, cease marketing activities, and limit operations strictly to winding down positions and transferring or closing assets. Custody may continue only for the period strictly necessary for an orderly exit.

Cross-border structures cannot be used to bypass MiCA requirements. Non-EU providers cannot service EU clients, and authorised CASPs cannot outsource custody to unauthorised entities.

A More Concentrated Market

MiCA was designed to protect investors and raise compliance standards — but it has also sharply reduced the number of firms able to serve EU clients, with no sign that demand has fallen proportionally.

Authorised CASPs therefore operate with less competition than before, against steady demand. Whether displaced users move to authorised EEA platforms, switch to self-hosted wallets, or migrate to non-EU providers remains to be seen — but the structural position of authorised CASPs (strong demand, constrained supply, high barriers to new entry) is unusual and likely to persist. This has already prompted MiCA-authorised platforms to increase marketing efforts, even as uncertainty continues among traders about the status of unauthorised platforms and their assets.

Building a MiCA-Compliant Business

For firms assessing entry into the European market, a MiCA CASP licence is now the baseline requirement for operating in the EEA.

Capital requirements are moderate, ranging between €50,000 and €150,000 depending on licence class, with an annual supervisory fee of 0.6%, subject to a €3,000 minimum.

MiCA authorisation is not limited to capital thresholds. Firms must demonstrate to regulators:

• Appropriate governance arrangements
• Effective internal control and compliance systems
• Sound risk management frameworks
• Operational resilience and secure ICT infrastructure
• Financial soundness

Regulators assess these elements in full before granting authorisation.

At product level, crypto-asset issuers must comply with disclosure requirements through approved white papers, which must clearly explain both the underlying technology and associated risks before offering crypto-assets in the EEA.

In combination with the Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA), MiCA signals a shift towards institutional standards aligned with traditional financial services regulation.

AMLA Advisory: ML/TF Risks During Market Reconfiguration

Alongside ESMA requirements, the EU Anti-Money Laundering Authority (AMLA) has highlighted ML/TF risks arising from the end of the MiCA transitional period and the resulting market consolidation (see the official AMLA advisory for full details). The exit of unauthorised virtual asset service providers (VASPs) and the transfer of customer relationships increase risks related to illicit flow concealment, sanctions evasion, and reduced transparency of asset movements.

Unauthorised VASPs must maintain full AML/CFT controls throughout the wind-down process, including customer due diligence (CDD), transaction monitoring, and suspicious activity reporting until all regulated activity ceases.

AMLA confirms that customers migrating from unauthorised VASPs must not be subject to blanket de-risking. CASPs must apply a risk-based approach with proportionate CDD and individual assessment of incoming clients.

For supervisors and Financial Intelligence Units (FIUs), AMLA emphasises enhanced cross-border coordination and improved visibility over transfer flows between exiting VASPs and receiving CASPs to support consistent supervision and detection of emerging risks.

How ECOVIS ProventusLaw Is Supporting Crypto Platforms

At ECOVIS ProventusLaw, we advise firms navigating MiCA implementation across the EEA. Market participants — including Match Networks Ltd., Proof Space Pte. Ltd., Aethir Network Foundation Company, Trek Technologies SIA, Trek Labs UAB (Backpack Token) and others — are restructuring their operating models, securing token approvals, and transitioning towards fully regulated institutional frameworks.

ECOVIS ProventusLaw is a specialised fintech and financial regulatory law firm in Lithuania and the wider Baltic region, advising on crypto licensing since 2014 and having secured more than 40 FinTech licences end-to-end. The firm’s practice covers banking, payments, e-money, investment firms, and crypto-asset regulation, including tokenisation, digital assets, and institutional finance. It operates across Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia and is part of the ECOVIS International network, present in more than 90 countries.

For crypto businesses, regulatory integration has become a core commercial requirement for operating in a newly filtered, high-value market of 450 million European consumers. Firms that build structural maturity today will be best positioned for the next phase of European digital finance.

The post MiCA Transitional Period Has Ended: The European Crypto Market After the Deadline appeared first on ECOVIS ProventusLaw.