More MiCA-licensed crypto firms may exit EU market: Gate Europe CEO

Crypto companies that already hold a licence under the European Union's Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA) could still exit the market as compliance costs mount, according to the CEO of Gate Europe.

Giovanni Cunti told Cointelegraph on Monday that stricter regulatory requirements have made it increasingly difficult for new entrants to compete, and that some licensed firms could ultimately be unable to absorb the ongoing costs of operating under the framework.

"I think there are going to be quite a few more of the ones that acquire MiCA license that will not be capable to sustain the cost and the resources that are needed to carry on this business in the long term," Cunti said.

That is a more specific claim than the familiar complaint that regulation is expensive. Cunti is not describing firms that failed to get authorised. He is describing firms that cleared the bar, hold the licence, and may still conclude that staying is not worth it.

What did Gate Europe's CEO actually say about MiCA-licensed firms leaving?

Cunti made three distinct points. The first is the cost argument quoted above: obtaining a licence and sustaining one are different problems, and the second is the harder of the two.

The second concerns where new projects choose to launch. Cunti warned that MiCA's stricter requirements could drive some crypto startups and projects outside Europe. While the framework has strengthened investor protections, he said, it leaves less room for innovation than jurisdictions with lighter rules, and some projects may choose to launch elsewhere instead of navigating the bloc's compliance regime.

"We may need to be prepared that some projects, possibly some important projects, may be looking at other jurisdictions with different guidelines," he said.

The third cuts against a purely pessimistic reading. Cunti said the higher regulatory burden is reshaping Europe's competitive landscape, but that the shrunken market also presents an opportunity for the crypto service providers that remain.

"There was a market with thousands of operators, and now there is a market with only hundreds," Cunti said. "So definitely there is a big opportunity for all of us. There is an ongoing migration because customers do not want to lose access to this market," he added.

It is worth noting whose assessment this is. Cunti runs a licensed European operation, so he is describing a consolidation in which his own firm is among the survivors. That does not make the observation wrong, but it is a view from inside the group that benefits from it.

What changed for crypto firms in the EU on July 1?

MiCA is the EU's regulatory framework for crypto assets. The bloc's grace period ended with a transition deadline of July 1, requiring crypto firms serving EU customers to operate under authorisation or cease offering regulated services.

The effect was immediate. The deadline prompted several exchanges to restrict or withdraw services in parts of Europe, while licensed firms began operating under the new regime. The most prominent name on the wrong side of the line was Binance: the world's largest crypto exchange by trading volume was not able to secure a MiCA licence. If the largest exchange by volume did not clear the deadline, the constraint is evidently not a simple function of company size.

How many firms are authorised under MiCA now?

The authorised population is still growing, though more slowly. On Friday, the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) added 14 crypto-asset service providers (CASPs) to its register, bringing the total to 294, after adding 37 firms in ESMA's first update following the July 1 transition deadline.

Cunti describes a market that had thousands of operators and now has only hundreds; the register currently stands at 294 authorised providers. He does not put a number on how many firms he expects to exit, and neither will this article. One caution on reading the register: growth in the total does not settle the question he raises, because his claim is about attrition among firms that are already authorised. A firm can be added this quarter and withdraw later, and a running total would not distinguish the two.

Why MiCA compliance costs could push licensed firms out of the EU market

The mechanism Cunti describes is a recurring one in regulated financial services and is not specific to crypto. The cost of a compliance regime is substantially fixed rather than proportional to revenue: capital, governance, reporting infrastructure and qualified staff are required at a level set by the rulebook, not by the size of the firm's order book. Large firms spread that cost across a large base; smaller firms carry a similar absolute cost against a much smaller one.

Cunti's account of the trade-off is two-sided rather than simply negative. He credits the framework with strengthening investor protections. His objection is that it leaves less room for innovation than lighter-touch jurisdictions and that the cost of remaining may exceed what some authorised firms can carry. Those are compatible positions: a regime can raise the standard of protection for the customers who stay and, in the same movement, reduce the number of firms competing for them.

The second-order effect deserves attention from anyone with client assets or client records at a European venue. If licensed firms may still exit, then holding a licence is not by itself a guarantee of continuity for that firm's customers. A venue can be fully authorised on the day you onboard and later choose to wind down European operations for reasons unrelated to its regulatory standing. That is a commercial decision rather than a compliance failure, and it carries an entirely different signal from an enforcement action.

What does the MiCA shakeout mean for finance and compliance teams?

The operational risk in a consolidating market is not primarily regulatory, it is data continuity. When a venue withdraws service from a jurisdiction, its customers move, and the accounting consequences land on whoever has to produce the figures.

Worth checking while the market is still moving: whether historical transaction data can be exported from every venue in use, in a form that survives the venue itself; whether cost basis and acquisition dates travel intact when assets move to a new provider, since a transfer arriving without its history turns a straightforward disposal calculation into a reconstruction exercise; and whether the venues in use appear on the ESMA register at all. None of this is urgent in the sense of a filing deadline, but all of it is cheaper to do while a venue is operating normally than during a wind-down, when export tooling is often the first thing to degrade.

What does Cunti's warning not tell us?

His remarks are a forecast from one market participant, not a dataset:

• No number and no timeframe. He says "quite a few more" licensed firms may be unable to sustain the cost, without quantifying how many or over what period.
• No named firms. No licensed company is identified as likely to exit. Binance is named in the reporting, but for a different reason: it was not able to secure a licence, so it is not an example of the licensed-exit pattern he describes.
• No cost figures. The argument is entirely qualitative. No compliance cost, capital requirement or revenue threshold is given.
• No destination jurisdictions. He refers to "other jurisdictions with different guidelines" without naming any.
• No confirmed exits yet. The claim is prospective; no licensed firm is identified as having already left for cost reasons.

The broader point is that the European market's composition is not yet settled. The transition deadline has passed and the register is growing, but the question of which authorised firms will still be operating in Europe in a year is, on the account of at least one licensed operator, genuinely open.

Source: Cointelegraph