Poland’s regulatory outlook for digital assets shifted after President Karol Nawrocki vetoed a bill designed to introduce oversight of the crypto-assets market. The legislation, approved by the government earlier this year, sought to align Poland with the EU’s Markets in Crypto-Assets framework and formalize supervisory powers under the Financial Supervision Authority. The move places Poland at odds with the regulatory trajectory of most member states.
The government positioned the bill as a consumer protection measure, pointing to rising crypto participation and persistent fraud cases. Data from the finance ministry indicates that crypto ownership in Poland remains elevated relative to the EU average, which has increased pressure on policymakers to advance oversight. However, the president argued that the bill risked overreach, citing concerns about state authority, excessive regulatory burdens, and potential operational disruptions for domestic firms.
Under the proposed framework, firms would have been required to provide activity reports to the national regulator, with sanctions and criminal liability available in cases of misconduct. Supporters viewed the structure as a baseline needed to maintain competitiveness as the EU approaches final MiCA implementation deadlines. Without a designated supervisory authority by mid-2026, crypto service providers registered in Poland could be forced to relocate within the EU, which will shift associated fees and tax revenues abroad.
Industry Reactions and Broader Market Implications
Market participants have warned that regulatory uncertainty could reshape industry dynamics. Some domestic firms supported the bill as a path toward clarity, but noted that Poland is already behind its regional peers in establishing a formal regime. Others argued that the legislation was disproportionate and voiced concerns about restrictive fee structures, domain-blocking provisions, and the length and complexity of the text compared with regulations adopted in neighboring countries.
The president’s office underscored fears that the bill would elevate compliance costs for smaller firms while advantaging larger financial institutions, potentially reducing competitive intensity. Industry groups remain divided on whether the veto preserves innovation or introduces new risks for investors navigating a largely unregulated environment.
Government officials criticized the decision, warning that the absence of a regulatory framework could expose consumers to misconduct and leave Poland isolated at a critical phase of EU harmonization. Policymakers now face renewed pressure to develop an alternative approach that meets MiCA requirements without imposing excessive burdens on market participants.
