While MiCA has promised the possibility of a harmonized regime for startups and mid-sized companies, the barriers to entry are still high, and the rules continue to take shape. As a result, companies are considering other channels to remain competitive, get off the ground faster, and navigate in legal gray areas without overcommitting resources, says Vadym Rozov, CEO & Founder of Simplify Labs.
With the coming of age of the European crypto industry, businesses are now faced with a tricky choice: accept the new regulation under MiCA or find wiser, more nimble ways of doing business. While MiCA aims to impose structure and trust on the industry, it is marred by challenges, lengthy approval periods, increased operating costs, and uncertainty in the majority of EU countries. For start-ups and growing enterprises, this can hamper innovation and expansion. That is why most are looking for solutions that allow them to stay agile, access European users, and produce sustainably without getting bogged down in regulatory gateways.
Why crypto companies may need alternatives to MiCA
MiCA provides much-needed clarity for the European crypto landscape, but for many companies, especially startups, the barriers to entry are steep. A 2025 Europe Crypto Report found licensing and compliance fees have ballooned from around €10K to over €60K on average, a roughly sixfold increase, leading many startups to rethink their European strategies
Added to elevated costs, regulatory uncertainty among EU member states entails further risk. While MiCA should standardize rules, national regulators interpret and apply them heterogeneously, especially during the transition. This creates gray areas for P2P platforms, wallet providers, and crypto-fiat ramps without full CASP licenses yet. These businesses often fall under unclear or outdated national law, making them vulnerable to sudden enforcement or policy shifts. For example, some P2P traders on exchanges like Binance have already been barred from accessing local markets according to new interpretations of MiCA’s scope, despite the fact that the regulation is not yet fully applicable. In such a climate, looking at alternative jurisdictions or legal constructions is no longer just strategic but a requirement.
What are the alternatives to MiCA?
Crypto businesses can attempt the reverse solicitation method, offering services to European clients solely if they are directly contacted without actively promoting. Under MiCA, non-EU providers can legally offer services to EU users if and only if the client initiates contact solely and evidently. Though an exemption is given, it’s fairly narrow in scope: any promotion, direct or indirect, has the potential to nullify the exemption and trigger full regulatory obligations. Being able to use this model successfully requires rigorous compliance controls, geo-blocking, and robust documentation to prove each client was self-directed.
A plausible path for crypto companies is to be located in jurisdictions that have more favorable regulatory frameworks. These locations typically have less stringent capital requirements, faster licensing, and easier rules on classifying and handling digital assets. Some differentiate assets not by nature but by method of conveyance, for instance, blockchain structures, so that companies can trade with securities, derivatives, and tokens under one framework. Such jurisdictions are increasingly popular among the big players because they have leaner frameworks and business adaptability, especially for companies that want to access global users without being burdened by the heavy compliance load of one region.
A second extremely popular option is to access via a white-label partnership with licensed parties. In such an arrangement, a company integrates its services into a compliant platform that already has the necessary regulatory approvals in place. The partner performs core compliance activities, including KYC, AML, and transaction monitoring, so the customer-facing business can focus on user acquisition and experience. This model achieves faster market access, avoids the cost and operational overcomplications of direct licensing, and nonetheless remains in regulatory compliance. It is also well-suited to scale-ups or start-ups seeking to test out pilot markets or gain initial traction prior to anchoring down into full regulatory commitment.
Examples of MiCA alternatives in use
El Salvador boasts one of the most attractive alternatives to MiCA in the form of its DASP license, with the minimum capital set at just $2,000 and received in 4-6 months on average. The licensed businesses benefit from zero corporate taxation on their crypto activities, including derivatives, and the regime covers utility and security tokens where they are traded on-chain. Major ones like Bitfinex Derivatives and Freedx are already DASP licensed and relocated to El Salvador, demonstrating the attractiveness of the country’s streamlined, tax-efficient environment for foreign players.
Canada offers another possibility with its Money Services Business (MSB) regulatory framework through FINTRAC. Businesses can choose a Foreign MSB license to onboard Canadian clients remotely (no local presence is required), or a domestic MSB, requiring substance local office, compliance staff, and registration. Less onerous than MiCA, it still exercises AML/KYC controls and onboards foreign clients. But EU-headquartered institutions using this as an indirect entry into EU markets still invite EU regulatory scrutiny if they actively solicit European customers without MiCA authorization, e.g., the Bank of Lithuania’s notice to lx.com.
Malta, as a seasoned crypto licensing hub, supports a robust white-label partnership model. For example, Simplify Labs partners with a Malta-licensed exchange, and partners can resell on-ramp/off-ramp services under existing regulatory approval. This setup enables businesses to easily tap into European markets without doing MiCA licensing themselves. They can provide EU consumers compliant fiat on-ramps, KYC/KYB procedures, and transactional monitoring based on the partner’s license, a suitable option for businesses requiring speed and scalability.
In a continuously shifting regulatory landscape, MiCA sets the bar high for crypto compliance in Europe, but there is more than one way forward. With reverse solicitation, strategic partnerships, and foreign licenses, companies can continue to serve clients at a lower cost and with reduced complexity. By examining alternative options like El Salvador, Canada, or Malta, crypto businesses can maintain flexibility and momentum in life while designing the future of regulation.
