Poland’s President Karol Nawrocki vetoed the national bill implementing the EU’s MiCA framework on December 1, 2025, arguing it threatened “the freedoms of Poles, their property, and the stability of the state.” The move targets provisions described as opaque and overly burdensome and leaves the domestic crypto sector without a national law enabling MiCA authorisations.

Core objections centred on opacity and regulatory burden

Nawrocki outlined two principal objections: the bill’s “opaque domain-blocking provisions,” which he said could allow authorities to disable crypto-service websites without transparent procedures, and a level of complexity that he argued would overregulate startups and impose disproportionate compliance costs. His stance presents the veto as a defence of civil and property rights against undue state control.

The veto creates an immediate regulatory gap: without a national implementing act, Polish crypto-asset service providers cannot apply for the MiCA authorisation required to operate across the EU single market. Because that authorisation functions as a passport for EU-wide services, its absence effectively sidelines Polish firms compared with operators in member states that have already completed implementation.

The Ministry of Finance warned that the veto could prompt serious market players to relocate to other EU jurisdictions, draining capital and projects from Poland, while non-Polish providers may passport services into the country and capture market share at the expense of domestic operators.

Under the constitution, a presidential veto returns the bill to the Sejm, and overriding it requires a three-fifths majority with at least half of lawmakers present. The episode signals a political clash over sovereignty, regulatory scope and alignment with EU policy, unfolding against earlier MiCA milestones: stablecoin rules came into force on June 30, 2024, and the full regulation became applicable on December 30, 2024.

In conclusion, the veto protects the president’s stated concerns about procedural transparency and regulatory burden, but it creates a legal limbo that disadvantages Polish CASPs and shifts competitive positioning toward foreign incumbents, producing an immediate squeeze for domestic firms.