PLS Getting MiCAR

The implications of a MiCAR licence are multiple, but two of the largest hurdles are cost and compliance. The price fluctuates based on the class of licence required which in turn fluctuates based on the service being provided by the PI. Furthermore, the cost of obtaining and 1 maintaining a MiCAR licence is rarely limited to the application fee alone.

Payment Institutions (PIs) offering crypto-related services, such as issuing EMTs, providing crypto-asset services, or enabling crypto payments, need a separate MiCAR authorisation on top of their existing licence.

MiCAR imposes conduct-of-business, conflict-of-interest, and client asset segregation rules similar to MiFID II, plus white paper disclosure requirements for EMT issuers. The application process runs through four stages: pre-application engagement with the NCA; formal submission; assessment (including fit-and-proper checks); and ongoing post-authorisation supervision. The existing documentation will not satisfy MiCAR requirements without meaningful adaptation, though Malta’s MFSA reduces some duplication by cross-referencing existing PI documentation. PIs on a simplified ICT framework will also be pushed into the full DORA-aligned regime once crypto services are added.

Costs stack across four categories:

• White paper notification fees: €2,500-€8,000 (varies by entity/token type), plus €1,000 for amendments
• Application fees: €10,000-€25,000 by licence class
• Annual supervisory fees: €10,000-€50,000 by class (Class 3 supervisory fees double its application fee)
• Minimum capital requirements: €50,000-€150,000 by class, potentially exceeding existing PI thresholds and creating a standalone capital adequacy obligation.

Beyond these headline costs, PIs must budget for legal/advisory fees, an ongoing compliance function, and technology investment.

Thus, the MiCAR licence is a strategic commercial decision, not a compliance formality. The commercial upside should be weighed against the genuine scope of new obligations.