MiCA without Illusions: How EU Supervisors Actually Stop Token Projects – Focusing on DACH

Author: NEXORA Unternehmensberatung GmbH Date: January 2026 Reading time: approx. 12 minutes

1. From MiCA Theory to Enforcement Reality

Since December 30, 2024, the Markets in Crypto‑Assets Regulation (MiCA) has been fully applicable to issuers of crypto‑assets and Crypto‑Asset Service Providers (CASP) in the EU; in Austria, the FMA is explicitly designated as the competent authority. With its statement on the transitional periods, ESMA clarified at the end of 2025 that national supervisors, after the transitional arrangements have expired, not only may, but must: remove unauthorized crypto‑service providers from the market and demand orderly winding‑up plans.

For crypto‑projects, fintech startups and VC‑investors, this means that MiCA is no longer a "future topic", but a tough market entry and survival condition. The central question is shifting: no longer "do we need a license?", but "is our product even eligible for approval and scalable in a MiCA‑market?"

2. CASP‑License vs. public token offerings: two different risk dimensions

CASP‑License: Who is even allowed to provide services?

MiCA introduces the category of Crypto‑Asset Service Provider (CASP) – exchanges, brokers, custodians, trading platforms, portfolio managers and advisors who hold or broker crypto‑assets for third parties. Anyone who wants to provide crypto‑services for clients in the EU needs a CASP‑license in a member state; after that, an EU‑wide passport is possible.

In its statement on the transitional measures, ESMA emphasizes:

• Transitional periods only apply to providers who were already legally active before MiCA.

• "Last‑minute" applications do not enjoy any protection of legitimate expectations: Supervisors can demand that services are restricted or temporarily suspended during the examination.

ART/EMT/other Tokens: Who is even allowed to "offer something publicly"?

Parallel to the CASP‑license, there is a separate regime‑logic for public offerings of tokens:

• Asset‑referenced Tokens (ART) and E‑Money Tokens (EMT) require an approved issuer, strict own funds and reserve rules, as well as a whitepaper approved by the supervisory authority.

• For other crypto‑assets (utility‑ or investment‑like tokens), a standardized whitepaper with a clear presentation of the rights and risks is mandatory.

Important: A CASP‑license does not automatically entitle you to carry out public token offerings – that is a separate regulatory track. It is precisely in this axis – public offerings and whitepaper‑obligations – that we see the first clear enforcement‑signals.

3. Austria and the FMA: "Early Enforcer" with concrete cases

Standard in Gold Ltd: Gold‑Token as MiCA‑Test Case

In 2025, the FMA imposed a sanction against Standard in Gold Ltd for violations of the regulations on the public offering of asset‑referenced tokens (ART). The company offered gold‑backed tokens and addressed investors without properly fulfilling the MiCA‑requirements for approval and information.

The message to the market is clear:

• "Gold" or "Real‑World‑Assets" are not a loophole, but usually a clear ART‑Case with strict regulation.

• Anyone who distributes gold‑ or commodity-backed tokens to retail investors without an approved whitepaper and issuer status runs the risk of an inadmissible public offering – including fines and factual market displacement in the EU.

FMA‑Warnings: Marketing as a supervisory trigger

At the same time, in 2024/2025, the FMA significantly increased the number of public warnings against crypto‑platforms with intransparent offers and missing approval. Examples include warnings against Token Tact, Phemex, Krypto‑Ex and SkyGateHolding, where the FMA emphasizes that:

• no permission or registration exists in Austria;

• "Investment‑" or "asset management"-like offers are made without supervision and without investor‑protection mechanisms.

Formally, these references are partly still based on banking and securities law; in terms of content, however, they are fully MiCA‑compatible, especially in the treatment of marketing as a trigger:

• As soon as a website, landing page, social‑media‑campaign or influencer‑content contains enough information for a person to make an investment decision, the supervisory authority quickly considers it a public offering or a regulated service.

Austria is thus positioning itself as a jurisdiction that does not want to "wait for" MiCA, but actively use it – both through classic supervisory instruments and through high-profile cases.

4. France: 90 Crypto‑Companies before the MiCA‑Cut‑off

In January 2026, the French AMF published figures according to which 90 crypto‑providers in France continue to operate without a MiCA‑license, although the end of the national transitional period (June 30, 2026) is approaching. According to reports by the AMF:

• around 40% of these companies have explicitly stated that they do not want to apply for a MiCA‑license;

• approx. 30% are in the application‑ or review process;

• the rest did not respond to inquiries from the supervisory authority at all.

The AMF makes it clear:

• from July 2026, providers without MiCA‑status must cease their activities in France;

• at the same time, ESMA points out that such providers must have orderly exit‑plans – including the return of customer funds and assets.

This makes France the first major jurisdiction to publicly quantify the scope of potential market cleanup (90 companies), even if no list of names is published. For investors and VC‑funds, this is a clear signal that parts of the previous crypto‑ecosystem in Europe will either be transferred into regulated structures or forced out of the market.

5. ESMA and the transitional periods: The safety net expires

In its "Statement on MiCA Transitional Measures", ESMA sets a clear framework for the end of the transitional periods at the end of 2025. Three points are central:

• Member states can shorten or completely suspend transitional periods if this is necessary for investor protection.

• National supervisors should not automatically tolerate providers continuing to provide services under the pretext of an ongoing application.

• CASP must – if approval is not expected to be achieved – develop and implement orderly wind‑down plans.

For investors, ESMA emphasizes that the mere fact that a provider is still active after the transitional period has expired is not proof of MiCA‑conformity; the status should be checked in the ESMA‑register. This position gives national supervisors a robust mandate not only to sharply examine new applications, but especially to take action against "permanent transitional solutions".

6. Typical errors in token‑structure and offering‑setup

The combination of FMA‑practice, AMF‑data and ESMA‑guidance shows a number of recurring errors that lead token‑projects directly into MiCA‑risk:

• Marketing before regulation

Projects launch websites, whitepaper‑lite, influencer‑videos or airdrop‑campaigns before they:

• have cleanly carried out the legal classification of the token (ART/EMT/other),

• have discussed an acceptable whitepaper‑concept with the supervisory authority.

Result: The offer can be classified as an inadmissible public offer – even with technically sophisticated products.

• Misclassification of RWA‑ and "Gold"-Tokens

Many projects label gold‑, real estate‑ or RWA‑tokens as "Utility" or "Membership", although they are economically clearly asset‑referenced and therefore fall into the strict ART‑regime. The enforcement against Standard in Gold Ltd illustrates exactly this constellation: "easy access to gold" on the marketing side, but legally ART without a MiCA‑compliant setup.

• Whitepaper as a marketing‑prospectus instead of a legal‑ and risk‑document

Often missing:

• precise description of the legal status of the token‑holders;

• clear presentation of risks (reserve‑risks, liquidity, volatility, insolvency);

• Mechanisms for redemption, ranking in the event of insolvency, etc.

In such cases, supervisors tend to qualify the token more as a financial instrument and demand the application of the prospectus law – i.e. more than MiCA, not less.

• Ignoring the transition logic

The French case shows that a significant part of the providers declare that they do not want to strive for a MiCA‑license at all, hoping to be able to continue "on the old regime". ESMA makes it clear, however, that this is not an option: without a perspective on approval, providers must reduce their activities and leave the market in an orderly manner.

7. DACH‑Region: three models under one umbrella

Austria: FMA as MiCA‑Laboratory

Austria has transposed MiCA into national law via the MiCA‑VVG and has transferred comprehensive responsibilities for approval, ongoing supervision and enforcement to the FMA. In addition to MiCA, the Financial Market Money Laundering Act (FM‑GwG), the Fund‑Laws (AIFMG/InvFG) and specific tax regulations apply – Austria is thus considered one of the most "over-regulated" crypto‑jurisdictions in the EU.

For VASP‑providers, there is a transitional period until 31.12.2025; after that, an activity-like activity without CASP‑approval is hardly sustainable. In combination with the sanction against Standard in Gold Ltd as well as a record number of warnings against unregulated crypto‑offers, it shows: Austria is an "early MiCA‑Enforcer", which takes both token‑issuers and service‑providers into the obligation early on.

Germany: BaFin – strict, but plannable

Germany has implemented MiCA via FinMADiG and KMAG; BaFin acts as the central authority for CASP‑approvals according to MiCA. For already licensed players (e.g. crypto-custodians and trading platforms according to KWG) there are fast‑track‑regulations; nevertheless, the following applies: by the end of 2025 at the latest, all relevant providers must have achieved a MiCA‑compliant status.

The KMAG additionally strengthens BaFin, including through:

• explicit authority to "name‑and‑warn" in the event of violations of MiCA;

• temporary and permanent cease‑and‑desist‑orders also against token‑offerings that do not comply with whitepaper‑ or prospectus requirements.

Judicial decisions from 2025 confirm BaFin's broad discretionary scope in the classification of crypto‑tokens as financial instruments – a strong legal tailwind for assertive enforcement.

This gives the DACH‑Region two strong "gatekeepers":

• FMA in Vienna with a focus on ART/EMT‑practice and retail‑warnings,

• BaFin in Frankfurt with a long enforcement‑tradition and high legal certainty.

Switzerland: FINMA outside of MiCA, but in the European pressure field

Switzerland is not an EU‑member and is formally not bound by MiCA; however, it remains a central location for crypto‑ and tokenization‑projects from the DACH‑region. FINMA has been regulating crypto‑business for years via the DLT‑law, existing financial licenses and AML‑rules; in 2025, the Federal Council also submitted proposals for new license categories (e.g. for stablecoins and crypto‑institutes) to the consultation in order to further strengthen consumer protection and market integrity.

For EU‑exposed Swiss providers, the following applies in practice:

• Anyone who wants to address EU‑retail‑clients needs a MiCA‑compatible structure – either via a CASP‑license in an EU‑state or through a strictly B2B‑/infrastructure‑oriented role without direct retail‑exposure.

• Since 2026, banks and payment service providers in the DACH‑region have been prioritizing cooperation with MiCA‑compliant counterparties, not least with regard to new EU‑rules on crypto‑tax reporting (DAC8) and cross-border information exchange.

8. What this means for projects, startups and VC

For projects and investors in the DACH‑context, there are clear fields of action:

For crypto‑projects / CASP:

• Early regulatory mapping: What role does the company play – exchange, custodian, broker, issuer, pure infrastructure? Which MiCA‑articles apply?

• Token‑classification according to economic reality, not according to marketing: What rights does the token grant, is there a value reference (ART/EMT), a profit participation or only rights of use?

• Marketing as the last step: First classification and whitepaper‑design, then campaigns – not the other way around.

For VC and founders:

• In the Due Diligence, ask about MiCA‑capability ("MiCA‑resilience"):

• Is there a clear roadmap to CASP‑/ART‑/EMT‑approval?

• Is the business model built on products that MiCA does not actually provide for (e.g. algorithmic stablecoins)?

• Establish "Regulation‑Market‑Fit" as an investment criterion: In the EU, the regulatory fit is increasingly decisive for the scalability and the exit‑value of a crypto‑/fintech‑model.

9. Consulting‑Perspective: How Nexora creates added value

The current MiCA‑practice of FMA, AMF, BaFin and ESMA shows that the market is moving from a phase of "freedom of interpretation" to a phase of pragmatic enforcement – with real sanctions, threatening shut‑downs and clear expectations of orderly exit‑scenarios. Consulting is thus becoming less of a "paragraph translation" and more of a translation of the supervisory authority's patterns of thinking: When do FMA/BaFin see a public offer? How do they differentiate ART/EMT vs. Utility? Where does marketing end and sales begin?

For projects in the DACH‑region, this means:

• Products and tokenomics must be designed with MiCA‑logic from the outset – not as a subsequent compliance‑add‑on.

• Anyone who takes this step uses MiCA not only as a regulatory hurdle, but as a ticket to a unified EU‑market that enables institutional capital, bank‑cooperations and sustainable growth.

This is exactly where Nexora positions itself: not as a "MiCA‑commentator", but as a partner that helps to align products, structures and go‑to‑market‑strategies in the way that FMA, BaFin and other supervisors actually think – and not just as it is written in the regulation text.

About NEXORA Unternehmensberatung GmbH:

NEXORA is a Vienna-based boutique consultancy focusing on MiCA compliance, crypto regulation, RegTech and market entry strategies for FinTechs, token projects, CASP providers and investors in the DACH region.

Our services in the area of MiCA & Crypto-Regulation:

• Regulatory Mapping & Role Clarification (CASP, Issuer, Infrastructure-Provider)

• Token-Classification (ART, EMT, Utility, Hybrid-Models) and Whitepaper-Structuring

• Support in CASP-Licensing Procedures (AT/DE/EU-Passporting)

• Product- and Go-to-Market-Design along the MiCA-Logic ("Regulation-Market-Fit")

• Enforcement-Readiness: Preparation for Supervisory Audits, FMA/BaFin-Dialogues and Risk-Assessments

• Investor- and VC-Due-Diligence-Support (MiCA-Resilience Checks)

Our approach: We work not only with the letter of the law, but also with actual supervisory practice. Our focus is on implementable structures, clear decision-making models, and regulatory-compliant product setups — instead of theoretical compliance concepts without market relevance.

For us, MiCA-Compliance is not a mandatory program, but a strategic competitive advantage.