Poland’s President Vetoes MiCA Implementation Bill for Second Time, Leaving Crypto Sector in Regulatory Limbo

TL;DR

• Polish President Karol Nawrocki vetoes the Crypto-Assets Market Act (Bill 2064) for the second time on February 12, 2026
• The legislation was designed to align Poland’s digital asset rules with the EU’s MiCA framework
• The veto leaves Polish crypto firms without a clear licensing pathway ahead of the July 1, 2026 MiCA transitional deadline
• Parliament had amended the bill to lower KNF supervision fees from 0.4% to 0.1% of revenue, but the president found the changes insufficient
• Meanwhile, US Congress debates crypto market structure as the SEC shifts its enforcement strategy away from major platforms

Polish President Karol Nawrocki has once again vetoed legislation intended to bring the country’s cryptocurrency regulations in line with the European Union’s Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation, delivering a significant blow to Poland’s digital asset industry and raising urgent questions about the country’s preparedness for the looming MiCA compliance deadline. The veto, issued on February 12, 2026, represents the second time Nawrocki has rejected the bill, leaving the nation’s crypto sector in a state of regulatory uncertainty with just months remaining before the EU’s transitional period expires.

The Veto and Its Context

Bill 2064, formally known as the Crypto-Assets Market Act, was designed to implement the EU’s MiCA Regulation and the Transfer of Funds Regulation into Polish law. The legislation would have designated Poland’s Financial Supervision Authority (KNF) as the National Competent Authority responsible for overseeing the cryptocurrency industry, establishing a licensing framework for crypto-asset service providers operating within the country.

Nawrocki first vetoed a version of the bill in December 2025, arguing that the proposed regulatory structure was flawed and that the supervision fees imposed on crypto firms were excessive. In response, parliament introduced an amended version that reduced the maximum fee charged by the KNF for industry oversight from 0.4 percent of firms’ revenue to 0.1 percent — a substantial concession. However, beyond this single amendment, the legislation remained virtually unchanged, which Nawrocki cited as grounds for his second rejection.

“I will not sign a wrong law just because it was passed again by the parliamentary majority,” Nawrocki stated following the veto, underscoring his position that superficial modifications did not address his fundamental concerns about the bill’s regulatory approach.

The July 1 Deadline Looms

The veto carries immediate practical consequences for Poland’s crypto industry. Under the EU’s MiCA framework, the transitional period for existing crypto-asset service providers expires on July 1, 2026. After that date, firms operating in member states must hold a valid license from their National Competent Authority to continue offering services legally. Without a designated NCA and a functioning licensing regime, Polish crypto companies will find themselves unable to obtain the necessary authorizations to operate within the EU’s harmonized digital asset market.

Industry stakeholders have warned that the regulatory impasse could trigger a mass exodus of crypto firms from Poland to more accommodating EU jurisdictions. Countries such as Lithuania, Ireland, and France have already established MiCA-compliant licensing frameworks, creating an attractive alternative for businesses seeking regulatory certainty. The Polish Blockchain and Crypto Assets Chamber of Commerce has estimated that the country hosts several hundred digital asset businesses, many of which are now actively exploring relocation options.

Political Dimensions of the Veto

The standoff between Nawrocki and the parliamentary majority reflects deeper political dynamics within Polish governance. The president, elected independently of the governing coalition, has positioned himself as a check on what he characterizes as hasty or poorly constructed legislation. His insistence on substantive revisions to the MiCA implementation bill, rather than cosmetic changes, signals a broader approach to executive oversight that extends beyond the crypto sector.

Prime Minister Donald Tusk’s government has characterized the veto as counterproductive, arguing that it jeopardizes Poland’s standing in the EU’s digital economy and puts domestic crypto firms at a competitive disadvantage. The governing coalition holds 243 seats in the Sejm, falling short of the 263 votes needed to override a presidential veto, meaning the path forward likely requires renegotiation rather than confrontation.

Parallel Developments: US Crypto Enforcement in Transition

The Polish veto coincides with significant regulatory shifts in the United States, where Congress is actively debating comprehensive crypto market structure legislation. On the same day as the Polish veto, discussions intensified around the SEC’s evolving enforcement approach to the cryptocurrency industry. A California lawmaker highlighted that the SEC had stepped back from several major enforcement cases involving leading platforms including Binance, Ripple, Coinbase, Kraken, and Robinhood over the past year.

This shift reflects a broader reassessment of crypto regulation under SEC Chairman Paul Atkins, who has signaled a preference for clear regulatory frameworks over adversarial enforcement actions. The approach marks a departure from the previous administration’s strategy and has drawn both praise from industry participants and criticism from consumer protection advocates who argue that reduced enforcement leaves investors vulnerable.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has also weighed in, warning that crypto firms blocking the CLARITY Act — a competing market structure bill — are creating what he termed “self-induced” volatility. The legislative landscape in Washington remains fluid, with multiple bills competing for congressional attention amid a broader debate about how best to regulate digital assets without stifling innovation.

What Comes Next for Poland

With the second veto now official, the Polish government faces a narrowing window to craft legislation acceptable to both the president and the parliamentary majority. Options include further amendments addressing Nawrocki’s specific concerns about regulatory structure and oversight mechanisms, or a broader renegotiation that incorporates more fundamental changes to the proposed licensing framework.

Legal experts have noted that even in the absence of domestic legislation, MiCA’s provisions will apply directly in Poland as an EU regulation after the transitional period. However, without a designated National Competent Authority, the enforcement and licensing mechanisms that MiCA relies upon will be non-functional, creating a regulatory vacuum that benefits neither consumers nor businesses.

Why This Matters

The Polish president’s second veto of MiCA implementation legislation highlights the growing pains of harmonizing digital asset regulation across diverse political landscapes. While the EU’s MiCA framework represents one of the most ambitious attempts to create a unified crypto regulatory regime, its effectiveness depends on timely and faithful implementation by each member state. Poland’s failure to establish a functioning licensing framework ahead of the July 2026 deadline not only threatens its domestic crypto industry but also tests the resilience of the EU’s regulatory model. Coupled with parallel regulatory debates in the United States, the Polish situation underscores that the global quest for clear, workable crypto regulation remains very much a work in progress.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice. Cryptocurrency and digital asset investments carry significant risk, including the potential for total loss of capital. Readers should conduct their own research and consult with a qualified financial advisor before making any investment decisions. Past performance is not indicative of future results.