Crypto and the MiCA framework: Why regional borders persist

The European Union spent years developing a common framework so authorized digital asset companies could expand without needing a separate license in every country. This initiative, known as the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation, or MiCA, was designed to give approved crypto providers a passport to offer their services across member states. Under Article 59, a company can operate elsewhere in the bloc without opening a local office simply by notifying its home regulator. However, despite these regulatory efforts, customers often find that trading access and payment options still depend heavily on which application they use and where they reside.

Hungary complicated this unified process when amendments to its local legislation added an extra requirement for validating crypto conversions, backed by criminal penalties. Companies already authorized under MiCA suddenly faced additional domestic hurdles. Revolut, for instance, instructed customers to sell their digital assets by December 2025 and announced plans to close crypto accounts. In response, the European Commission opened an infringement procedure in January, arguing that MiCA provided no legal basis for Hungary's extra authorization regime. Hungary subsequently repealed the requirement through Act XXXVIII of 2026, which took effect in August after officials acknowledged its incompatibility with EU rules.

EU crypto passport rules under MiCA clash with lingering national funding and service discrepancies.

Even after the repeal, practical access varied significantly by platform. Bitvavo announced that trading and euro deposits were returning for Hungarian customers, with registrations reopening in September. Meanwhile, support pages on other platforms continued to display older shutdown notices, highlighting that guidance can often outlive the restrictions it describes. Furthermore, funding an account across borders reveals additional fragmentation. European payment guides show that major exchanges offer different cash deposit methods depending on the country, ranging from Easy Bank Transfer in select nations to local solutions like BLIK in Poland or iDEAL in the Netherlands.

Understanding the regulatory impact

MiCA imposes strict duties on how platforms handle access and pricing, requiring trading platforms to maintain objective, non-discriminatory participation rules and transparent fee structures. Yet, exchange documentation indicates that funding methods and payment partnerships continue to differ widely by jurisdiction. These operational realities demonstrate that while regulatory frameworks establish broad licensing baselines, the day-to-day experience of trading digital assets remains influenced by regional payment integrations and company-specific compliance choices.