ESMA Adds BingX and YouHodler to MiCA Register
The European Securities and Markets Authority published its latest MiCA crypto-asset service provider register on 19 October 2026, adding nine new entries and pushing the total to 375 unique CASPs. The additions span Austria, Italy, Spain, Germany and Denmark, and include names as varied as a global exchange, a crypto lending platform and a subsidiary of Banco Santander. For accounting firms, auditors and CFOs operating in the EU, the update is a concrete marker of where the regulated perimeter now sits and what counterparty due diligence looks like going forward.
What the October Register Update Contains
ESMA's Friday register cycle brought nine new CASPs into the live list. The headline additions are BingX's Austrian entity, registered as MEGE zweite, and the Italian subsidiary of YouHodler, a yield-focused crypto lending platform. Both firms announced their national authorizations the previous week, making the ESMA listing the formal completion of the passporting chain across the European Economic Area.
BingX: Austrian Gateway to the EEA
BingX chose Austria as its EU regulatory home. Its CEO for EU operations, Daniel Lai, stated publicly that the approval gives the exchange a clear framework from which to launch regulated services across the EEA. Under MiCA's passporting regime, an authorization granted in one member state allows a CASP to offer services throughout the bloc, subject to notification procedures. For clients and counterparties of BingX, the Austrian authorization means the entity is now subject to MiCA's full conduct-of-business, disclosure and prudential requirements.
YouHodler: Italian Authorization Covers Four Service Categories
YouHodler's Italian subsidiary received authorization covering custody, crypto-asset exchange, order execution and transfer services. That breadth matters for any firm assessing whether YouHodler can be treated as a regulated counterparty for accounting or audit purposes. A CASP holding a multi-service MiCA license must comply with segregation of client assets, conflict-of-interest management and whitepaper disclosure obligations across all authorized activities.
Other New Entrants Across the EU
The remaining additions reflect the geographic spread of MiCA adoption and include both fintech natives and traditional banking groups.
Spain: Prakma Markets and the Goin App
Spain's Prakma Markets, linked to the Goin savings and investment app, joined the register. Goin positions itself as a consumer-facing savings platform, so its underlying CASP authorization is the regulatory foundation for any crypto-related investment product it offers. For firms reviewing client portfolios that include Goin-related products, Prakma's listed status confirms that underlying transactions flow through a regulated entity.
Germany: Openbank and Two Cooperative Lenders
Germany's three new additions are notable for their diversity. Openbank Deutschland, a subsidiary of Banco Santander, signals that large European banking groups are now actively building out their MiCA-authorized crypto arms rather than waiting. Joining it are VR-Bank Alb-Blau-Donau and VR Bank im südlichen Franken, both cooperative lenders, indicating that regional German banks are also moving through the authorization process. For auditors covering German banking clients, the presence of cooperative lenders on the CASP register introduces new considerations around client asset segregation and crypto-specific prudential ratios under MiCA.
The Penning Financial Services Anomaly
One item in this update demands specific attention from compliance and legal teams: Denmark's Penning Financial Services no longer appears on the ESMA register, despite having featured in every Friday update since 3 July 2026. A spokesperson for Penning told Cointelegraph that the firm's MiCA authorization remains unchanged and that it has received no communication from Denmark's Financial Supervisory Authority indicating any modification. ESMA and the Danish FSA had not responded to requests for clarification at the time of publication.
What a Register Disappearance Means in Practice
This is not a trivial administrative detail. Under MiCA, a CASP's ability to passport services across the EEA depends on active listing on the ESMA register. If a firm is removed, even temporarily or erroneously, its counterparties and clients face uncertainty about whether transactions executed during the gap period were conducted with a regulated entity. For accounting firms preparing financial statements or audit opinions that reference regulated-CASP status, a register discrepancy of this kind requires a documented inquiry and, potentially, a qualification or disclosure until clarity is received from the relevant authority. Firms using Penning as a counterparty should obtain written confirmation of its authorization status directly from the Danish FSA and retain that correspondence as part of their audit file.
The Broader Register Picture: EMTs, ARTs and Non-Compliant Providers
Beyond the CASP additions, two other register segments are worth tracking for accounting and compliance purposes.
E-Money Token and Asset-Referenced Token Registers
The EMT register held steady at 50 entries representing 25 unique entities. The ART register remains empty. For firms managing stablecoin positions, this distinction carries direct accounting implications: EMTs are subject to e-money rules and must be redeemed at par, which affects how they are classified on a balance sheet. ARTs, once they appear, will attract a different prudential and reserve-backing regime. The continued absence of ART authorizations means that any token marketed as asset-referenced but not on the ESMA list is, by definition, operating outside the regulated perimeter.
Non-Compliant CASP Register Grows Again
The register of non-compliant crypto-asset service providers increased by five entries to 178. This upward trend is operationally significant. An NCASP listing means the provider has been identified by a national competent authority as offering services without the required MiCA authorization. Transactions with NCASPs carry regulatory, reputational and increasingly legal risk. Any internal controls framework or vendor due diligence policy that does not include a check against the NCASP register is incomplete.
Accounting and Tax Implications for EU Firms
The steady growth of the CASP register has direct consequences for how firms account for and report crypto-related activities.
Counterparty Classification and Financial Reporting
Under IFRS and national GAAP frameworks applied across the EU, the regulatory status of a counterparty can affect asset classification, expected credit loss provisioning and disclosure requirements. A deposit or loan held with a MiCA-authorized CASP is a fundamentally different exposure from one held with an unlicensed entity. As the register grows, finance teams should be updating their counterparty registers to record MiCA status, authorization scope and the date of first listing. This is not a one-time exercise: the Penning situation illustrates that register status must be monitored on an ongoing basis, not just at onboarding.
VAT and Transfer Pricing Considerations
For groups with intra-EU crypto service flows, MiCA authorization also has transfer pricing relevance. A regulated CASP subsidiary that holds a multi-service license carries a different risk and function profile than an unregulated entity performing similar activities. As more EU subsidiaries obtain MiCA authorizations, transfer pricing documentation should be reviewed to reflect the changed regulatory status and the additional compliance costs that come with it. On the VAT side, the services that CASPs provide, such as exchange, custody and transfer, remain subject to member-state VAT treatment, but the regulatory classification can affect the analysis of whether a supply is a financial service exempt under the VAT Directive.
AML and KYC: What the Register Means for Onboarding
MiCA authorization does not replace AML obligations, but it does simplify part of the counterparty due diligence process. A CASP on the ESMA register has passed a national competent authority's fitness-and-propriety assessment and is subject to ongoing supervision. Firms can document register status as one component of their CDD file, though they should note that MiCA authorization and AMLD compliance are parallel regimes and that register listing alone does not discharge AML obligations. The five new NCASP entries serve as a useful reminder that the list of unauthorized providers is growing alongside the authorized one, and that a negative check against the NCASP register should be a standard step in any crypto-counterparty onboarding workflow.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the ESMA MiCA CASP register?
The ESMA MiCA CASP register is a public list of crypto-asset service providers that have received authorization under the EU's Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation from a national competent authority. ESMA consolidates national authorizations into a single register updated weekly, which can be accessed on the ESMA website. A listing confirms that the entity is authorized to provide the specific crypto-asset services noted against its name and can passport those services across the EEA.
Does MiCA authorization mean a CASP is also AML-compliant?
Not automatically. MiCA authorization confirms that a CASP has met the conduct-of-business, prudential and disclosure requirements under the regulation. AML and counter-terrorist financing obligations under the EU's Anti-Money Laundering Directives are a parallel regime enforced by national financial intelligence units and supervisors. A MiCA-authorized CASP must also comply with AMLD requirements, but the two authorizations are separate. Firms conducting counterparty due diligence should verify both MiCA register status and AML program quality independently.
What should an accounting firm do if a CASP disappears from the ESMA register?
The firm should treat the disappearance as a material change in counterparty status until the position is clarified. Practically, this means sending a written inquiry to the relevant national competent authority, documenting the register discrepancy and the date it was identified, and reviewing any open transactions or balances with that CASP. If an audit opinion or financial statement references the entity's regulated status, a note or qualification may be required pending clarification. The Penning Financial Services situation is a live example: the firm disputes any change in its authorization, but the register discrepancy alone creates a compliance documentation obligation for any counterparty or auditor relying on that status.
How does the EMT register differ from the CASP register, and why does it matter for accounting?
The EMT register lists issuers of e-money tokens, a category of stablecoin pegged to a single fiat currency and regulated similarly to electronic money. The CASP register lists service providers around crypto assets more broadly. For accounting teams, the distinction matters because EMTs must be redeemable at par at any time, which affects balance sheet classification: they are closer to a cash equivalent than a speculative digital asset. The ART register, currently empty, will eventually cover tokens backed by baskets of assets or other reference values, which carry a different accounting treatment. Tracking which register an asset's issuer appears on is therefore a first step in determining the correct accounting policy.
What are the practical consequences of transacting with an NCASP?
Transacting with a non-compliant CASP, one listed on ESMA's NCASP register, carries several risks. Regulatory risk: national competent authorities can and do issue cease-and-desist orders and fines to NCASPs and, in some jurisdictions, can pursue their clients for facilitating unlicensed activity. Reputational risk: association with an unauthorized provider may raise questions with auditors, investors and regulators about a firm's control environment. Financial risk: an NCASP operating without authorization has not met the prudential or client-asset segregation requirements of MiCA, meaning that assets held with it may not have the protections a regulated entity would provide. Checking the NCASP register before and during any crypto-asset service relationship is a basic control that should be embedded in every firm's vendor management process.
Source: Cointelegraph