Poland's Crypto License Regulatory Standoff: Political Divisions Threaten EU Compliance

Poland is caught in an unprecedented political standoff over cryptocurrency licensing and regulatory oversight. As the nation races to implement the European Union’s MiCA (Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation) directive, a sharp divide has emerged between two powerful figures: Prime Minister Donald Tusk, who champions strict regulatory enforcement through a comprehensive crypto license framework, and President Karol Nawrocki, who opposes what he views as an overly restrictive licensing system that threatens market innovation and civil liberties.

The conflict came to a head in early December 2025, when the government resubmitted the same cryptocurrency licensing bill that President Nawrocki had vetoed just days earlier—without changing a single word. This brazen political move signals an escalating battle between the executive and legislative branches, with Poland’s crypto market regulation hanging in the balance.

Poland’s Comprehensive Crypto License Framework: A Regulatory Deep Dive

At the heart of the controversy lies a remarkably detailed cryptocurrency licensing and regulatory architecture. The bill designates the Polish Financial Supervisory Authority (KNF) as the sole body responsible for issuing and overseeing all crypto asset service provider (CASP) licenses. This licensing system is far more intricate than those adopted by neighboring EU nations.

The licensing regime requires all crypto exchange operators, wallet custodians, token issuers, and stablecoin providers to obtain formal approval from KNF. The framework mandates rigorous Know Your Customer (KYC) procedures and requires these licensed entities to report transaction data to tax authorities and law enforcement. The bill also introduces criminal penalties, stipulating that anyone issuing tokens or providing crypto services without a proper license faces prosecution.

What sets Poland’s approach apart is its emphasis on stringent administrative oversight. The licensing framework grants KNF extraordinarily broad enforcement powers, including the ability to rapidly block websites and freeze accounts suspected of fraudulent activity. Simultaneously, the bill establishes a tiered fee system, where licensed crypto service providers must contribute percentages of their revenue to fund KNF’s regulatory operations. According to critics, these licensing fees are among the highest in Europe, effectively creating a barrier to entry for startups while benefiting established financial institutions.

The bill spans over 100 pages of detailed compliance requirements for every stage of crypto asset issuance, trading, and custody. Supporters argue this comprehensive licensing framework prevents systemic risks and protects consumers from fraud—especially given that Poland recorded more than 5,800 crypto fraud cases in 2024 alone. Detractors contend that the elaborate licensing requirements and high compliance costs make Poland an unfavorable jurisdiction for crypto innovation, compared to the more streamlined approaches taken by nations like Lithuania and Malta.

The Road to Deadlock: How Poland’s Crypto License Bill Became a Political Battleground

Poland’s journey toward MiCA-compliant crypto licensing legislation began in early 2024, when the Finance Ministry circulated an initial draft for public consultation. By mid-year, an updated version emerged with accelerated implementation timelines, shortening the transition period from late 2025 to June 30, 2025, to align more rapidly with EU deadlines.

By mid-2025, the Polish coalition government—led by the crypto-skeptical Prime Minister Tusk—formally approved the licensing bill and submitted it to parliament. The ruling coalition, spanning left-center and center factions with parliamentary majorities, supported swift passage. Conservative opposition parties, including the Law and Justice Party, opposed the harsh licensing requirements but lacked sufficient votes to block legislation.

In late 2025, the lower house (Sejm) passed the crypto licensing bill by a clear margin: 243 votes in favor, with unified support from ruling coalition members. The legislation advanced to President Nawrocki for his signature—a formality that suddenly became anything but routine.

On the basis of protecting civil rights and market vitality, President Nawrocki vetoed the licensing bill, marking a rare instance of presidential intervention in economic legislation. In his veto statement, Nawrocki criticized the licensing framework as “excessively complex, lengthy, and contrary to the spirit of EU regulation.” He specifically objected to the vague language surrounding website blocking authorities and questioned whether such sweeping powers were necessary or constitutionally sound. He further argued that the high licensing fees and onerous compliance burdens would force innovative Polish crypto startups to relocate to more permissive jurisdictions.

The government immediately convened an emergency legislative session to override the presidential veto, requiring a three-fifths majority (276 votes). However, the effort fell short—only 243 lawmakers voted to overturn the veto, the exact same number who had initially passed the bill. The override failed, and the licensing bill was temporarily blocked.

Undeterred, Prime Minister Tusk and his cabinet submitted the identical licensing bill to parliament on December 9, sparking furious reactions across the political spectrum. Tusk framed the crypto licensing issue as a matter of national security, warning that an unregulated crypto market exposes Poland to exploitation by Russian intelligence agencies and criminal syndicates. Intelligence reports allegedly identified hundreds of crypto companies registered in Poland with ties to Russian interests, he claimed.

The Ideological Chasm: Market Freedom vs. Security Through Regulation

The struggle over Poland’s crypto licensing framework reflects a fundamental philosophical divide about how emerging markets should be governed.

President Nawrocki and his allies—including far-right figures like Coalition party leader Sławomir Mentzen—oppose the licensing framework on principle. During his 2025 presidential campaign, Nawrocki promised to build a crypto-friendly Poland and pledged to resist what he calls “regulatory overreach.” His supporters contend that the overly elaborate licensing system is entirely inconsistent with the spirit of MiCA, which is designed to harmonize EU regulations without imposing unnecessarily restrictive national requirements.

They point to concrete examples: the Czech Republic and Slovakia each implemented MiCA-compliant crypto licensing with only a dozen pages of regulation, whereas Poland’s framework spans more than 100 pages. Nawrocki’s chief of staff, Zbigniew Bogucki, condemned the legislation as “excessive and bureaucratically burdensome,” arguing that it contradicts the minimalist intent of EU harmonization. The presidential camp worries that high licensing fees and compliance barriers will devastate Poland’s nascent crypto sector, driving talent and investment to Lithuania, Malta, and other crypto-friendly jurisdictions. They view the licensing veto as a principled stand for innovation and economic freedom.

Prime Minister Tusk and the ruling coalition present the opposite argument. They contend that robust crypto licensing and regulatory oversight are essential safeguards for financial stability and security. Tusk has publicly declared that the cryptocurrency sector, absent meaningful licensing controls and regulatory architecture, represents a vulnerability exploitable by hostile foreign actors and organized crime. He cited warnings from Poland’s intelligence community about Russian infiltration of Polish crypto markets and emphasized the need for comprehensive KYC, transaction reporting, and asset custody oversight mandated by the licensing framework.

The government also stresses Poland’s obligations under EU law. Deputy Finance Minister Jurand Drop warned that failure to establish a fully compliant crypto licensing regime by July 2026 would render Polish crypto companies unable to legally operate across the EU. Polish citizens using non-compliant exchanges would lose cross-border legal protections, and tax revenue would flow to other EU nations.

Additionally, the ruling coalition highlights the humanitarian case for strict crypto licensing: with 5,800+ documented fraud cases in 2024 and an epidemic of Ponzi schemes targeting Polish citizens, the government argues that robust licensing, consumer protection mandates, and regulatory enforcement are necessary to prevent financial devastation of ordinary Poles.

The Path Forward: Uncertainty and Compromise

As of early 2026, Poland remains one of the few EU member states without finalized MiCA-compliant cryptocurrency licensing legislation. The government’s December resubmission of the unchanged bill represents an unprecedented challenge to presidential authority, yet the political arithmetic suggests that another override attempt would fail.

The coming months will likely see either intensive negotiations between the presidential office and the government to craft a compromise licensing framework, or an extended legislative stalemate that leaves Polish crypto operators in legal limbo as the July 2026 EU deadline approaches. Some lawmakers have privately discussed a middle-ground licensing bill that would reduce fees, streamline compliance procedures, and grant regulatory authorities more limited (and precisely defined) enforcement powers.

What remains clear is that Poland’s crypto licensing debate has transcended technical regulatory discussion. It has become a referendum on how Poland should position itself within the EU—as an innovation-friendly tech hub or as a security-focused financial jurisdiction. The outcome will reverberate far beyond Poland’s borders, signaling to the crypto industry which countries prioritize market dynamism and which prioritize regulatory control.