Poland veto keeps crypto firms abroad

TLDR

Polands president has again blocked a crypto oversight law, so Polish firms must rely on other EU states for MiCA licensing.

1. Parliament failed to override President Karol Nawrockis veto of the Crypto?Asset Market Act, keeping Poland without a national MiCA supervisor.
2. Without local licenses, Polish crypto businesses are pushed to register in other EU jurisdictions, which can raise costs and complicate banking and compliance.
3. The government is preparing a new, possibly softer bill, but timing and final rules remain uncertain, keeping regulatory risk elevated for Polish users and firms.

Deep Dive

1. What Was Vetoed And Why It Matters

On 46 September, Polands Sejm again failed to reach the three?fifths majority needed to override President Nawrockis veto of the Crypto?Asset Market Act, with 241 votes for and 198 against, short of the required 266 votes. This was the third failed override attempt, leaving the veto in force and the bill dead.

The law would have made the Polish Financial Supervision Authority (KNF) the designated MiCA supervisor and created a licensing and enforcement regime for crypto service providers. Reports note that Poland is now the only EU member state that has not adapted its local framework to MiCA.

Nawrocki says he supports regulation but argued the bill was too restrictive, addressed only 1 of 16 changes he proposed, and could overburden the industry and allow authorities to block websites, which he claims risks driving businesses abroad.

2. How This Keeps Firms Abroad

MiCA applies across the EU, but each country must name a national authority to license and supervise crypto firms. Because Poland has not done this, local operators cannot yet obtain a Polish MiCA license.

Coverage of the vote highlights that, in practice, Polish firms now have to register in other EU countries to comply with MiCA and then offer services into Poland on a cross?border basis. That means higher legal and compliance costs, plus greater dependence on foreign regulators for approvals and ongoing supervision.

For users, the lack of a local framework can mean weaker consumer protections, less clarity on recourse if things go wrong, and a higher chance that serious operators pick other hubs over Poland.

3. What Comes Next And Key Risks

Government officials say the Finance Ministry is already drafting a new crypto bill after the failed override, with details and timing promised in the coming days. The political goal is to finally align Poland with MiCA while addressing some of the presidents objections.

This process unfolds against a widening Zondacrypto scandal, where a collapsed exchange is alleged to have caused about $95 million in losses and is tied to a major corruption probe involving former officials. That scandal is driving pressure for tighter oversight but also hardening political divides, which can delay a compromise text.

Until a new law passes and KNF is formally empowered as MiCA supervisor, Polands crypto market sits in a kind of regulatory limbo, where enforcement is fragmented and the most serious firms may prefer to base their core operations in other EU hubs.

Conclusion

Polands repeated vetoes of its crypto bill mean MiCA compliance for Polish operators now runs primarily through foreign regulators instead of Warsaw, weakening Polands appeal as a crypto hub. The combination of a high?profile exchange scandal and political brinkmanship makes a new, balanced bill both necessary and hard to deliver. For now, crypto participants with Polish exposure should focus on where a platform is actually licensed in the EU and watch for concrete movement on the next draft law.