The maximum transitional date for crypto-asset service providers operating under national rules before MiCA was July 1, 2026, unless authorisation was granted or refused sooner or a Member State set an earlier end date. ESMA’s June statement told clients to verify a provider in its register and with the relevant national authority. ESMA: Public statement on the end of MiCA transitional periods
Follow the evidence
Trace how the event could reach markets, then inspect a competing explanation.
Compare explanations
Switch lenses to see what each account explains—and what remains uncertain.
The transition deadline makes current MiCA authorisation status more relevant than historic national status.
The transition deadline makes current MiCA authorisation status more relevant than historic national status.
A brand-name search alone cannot establish whether the underlying entity or service is covered.
The transition was limited and its timetable varied by country
MiCA’s transitional provision allowed eligible providers already operating under national law before December 30, 2024, to continue until the end of the relevant national period, but not beyond July 1, 2026, or until an authorisation decision, whichever came first. Member States could choose a shorter period. Historic national status did not automatically become MiCA authorisation. ESMA: Public statement on the end of MiCA transitional periods
ESMA’s public register is designed to include crypto-asset white papers, authorised crypto-asset service providers and certain non-compliant entities. MiCA Article 109 sets out the central register, while Article 110 covers a register concerning non-compliant service providers. ESMA’s database is a starting point for verification, but does not replace the home-country competent authority’s record. ESMA: MiCA register and non-compliant entities ESMA Single Rulebook: MiCA Article 109 register
In June 2026 ESMA explicitly invited EU clients to check whether a provider was authorised under MiCA and to act promptly where it was not. That instruction is a consumer-protection reminder; it is not a claim that every unlisted service is necessarily fraudulent. A provider may be outside MiCA’s scope, may operate through a different legal entity or may be updating public information. ESMA: Public statement on the end of MiCA transitional periods
Match the entity and the service, not just the brand name
Begin with the exact legal entity named in the customer agreement, account statement and payment instructions. Search that name and any registration identifier in ESMA’s register, then open the record to check its status and authorised services. A marketing brand, group company or website domain may not be the entity that actually contracts with the customer.
Compare the services in the official entry with the activity being offered. Permission for one crypto-asset service should not be treated as blanket authorisation for every service, token or jurisdiction. If a provider says it is covered through a passport or affiliate, verify the named entity and territorial scope with the national regulator rather than relying only on a support-chat screenshot.
Search for adverse or non-compliant entries as well as positive authorisation records. MiCA requires certain authorisation withdrawals and other notified measures to remain visible for a defined period, so status history may matter. A clean search is still one check: it cannot show whether a website is a clone or whether a specific product is appropriate. ESMA Single Rulebook: MiCA Article 109 register
Pause before transferring assets and ask the regulator to confirm
If the legal name is missing, inconsistent or absent from the register, do not assume the gap proves wrongdoing or that the provider is authorised. Save the website address and documents, ask the company for its contracting entity and authorisation number, and independently contact the national competent authority using details published on its own website.
For an account already in use, review the provider’s notice about service changes, asset transfers and withdrawal arrangements. Do not send a new deposit solely to unlock a withdrawal or pay a supposed regulatory charge. Any transfer decision should be based on verified instructions and applicable terms; a public warning cannot guarantee that a provider will return customer assets.
The transition date is now historical, but registers and authorisation records can change. Recheck official sources before opening an account, adding funds or relying on a cross-border service. ESMA’s register is a verification tool, not an endorsement, deposit guarantee or substitute for checking the legal entity and exact service offered. ESMA: Public statement on the end of MiCA transitional periods ESMA: MiCA register and non-compliant entities