MiCA Webinar, 11 May: The Key Takeaways

TL;DR

The MiCA transitional period closes on 1 July, with no exceptions. AMF files are moving forward, but some firms will not make it. The post-authorisation phase is underestimated: ongoing compliance, mandatory staff certification, and tightening supervision from national regulators under ESMA pressure.

Speakers:

• Biba Homsy, Regulatory & Crypto Lawyer, Homsy Legal (Geneva / Luxembourg)
• Julie Bader, Tech and FinTech Lawyer, De Gaulle Fleurance
• Grégory Raymond, Head of Research, The Big Whale (moderator)

1 July deadline: no extension

The AMF's position is unambiguous: CASPs that have not obtained their MiCA authorisation by 1 July 2026 will have to cease operations. No additional grace period, no retroactive regularisation for firms still active past the deadline.

Julie Bader notes that France entered an 18-month transitional period from the moment MiCA came into force. Firms that filed early, such as Coinhouse, the first to obtain a MiCA licence in France, now hold a structural advantage. Others, having filed later or with insufficiently prepared applications, risk not clearing the deadline.

Ceasing operations for non-authorised firms carries a concrete obligation: transferring clients and crypto-assets to already-licensed platforms. This migration must be anticipated, documented, and individually consented to by each client.

The most common sticking points in AMF files

According to Julie Bader, three topics account for the majority of difficulties in files currently under review.

Cybersecurity is the most sensitive. Recent high-profile security incidents across the sector have hardened AMF scrutiny on this point. DORA, which came into application in January 2025, adds another layer of complexity: supervisory teams took time to build expertise, but controls are now rigorous.

Custody of crypto-assets is the second critical issue. MiCA requires that custody be handled by a MiCA-authorised entity established in Europe. Outsourcing to non-authorised foreign providers is not permitted, as illustrated by the BitGo US case, which had to wait for its German authorisation before it could act as a sub-custodian for European CASPs.

Order execution and price determination methodology are subject to highly specific questioning, aligned with MiFID standards.

ESMA pressure on national regulators

An ESMA document published on 17 April 2026 (ESMA 75-1132) marks a turning point. It addresses both CASPs on their migration obligations and national competent authorities (NCAs), making clear that no exceptions will be tolerated.

Biba Homsy underlines the significance of the message: NCAs are explicitly expected to verify the existence of wind-down plans, take action against unauthorised operators, and ensure client migration happens on schedule. This document partly explains the acceleration in communications from national regulators, including the AMF, in the weeks leading up to the webinar.

Choosing your regulator: a strategic decision, not a tactical one

The question of whether it still makes sense to seek authorisation in a faster jurisdiction than France is settled by both lawyers: speed alone is no longer a differentiating factor. All European regulators have aligned their standards. Julie Bader notes that some authorities were very fast at the start, but that pace has slowed across the board, and ESMA has since drawn attention to cases where authorisations were granted without full verification of conformity.

The relevant criteria remain the location of the target client base, fluency in the regulator's language, and the regulator's capacity to protect authorised firms, including against unfair competition from unauthorised operators advertising in the local market.

On post-authorisation international expansion, Biba Homsy identifies Switzerland as a natural extension for CASPs that have built their European base. The framework is more pragmatic, and she observes that current demand she sees comes from PSPs and MiCA-authorised firms that are now ready to go international, for whom Switzerland offers a simpler and faster path while remaining close to Europe.

Post-authorisation: the work starts here

A MiCA authorisation is not a stable end state. This is the point both lawyers stress most forcefully.

Ongoing obligations include: risk management (liquidity, market, operational), conflicts of interest, AML/CFT compliance, and tracking doctrinal developments from regulators (AMF, ESMA, EBA on stablecoins). Julie Bader also flags the need to monitor upcoming regulatory developments that will affect the crypto perimeter, without yet knowing their final shape.

On staff training, ESMA's guidelines (ESMA35-24871704-2922) published in January 2026 are binding: every CASP employee who provides information or advice on crypto-assets must hold a recognised certification. Two levels are defined: 80 hours for information staff and 160 hours for advisors, with an annual CPD requirement of 10 or 20 hours depending on the role, assessed by a recognised external body. Supervisory authorities will verify compliance.

The Big Whale has built a certification programme aligned with these guidelines, co-delivered with DEC Institute: the MIC™ (80h, €2,490/person) and the MAC™ (160h, €4,490/person), with a Pearson VUE proctored exam and per-employee ESMA compliance records. Deadline: 28 July 2026.

‍

→ Learn more: thebigwhale.io/academy