Consolidation Wave in European Crypto: MiCA and the UK Reshape the Digital Asset Landscape
MiCA and the British regulatory framework are accelerating consolidation in the crypto sector — small fintechs are being acquired by banks, compliance requirements are becoming prohibitive, and the focus is shifting toward regulated institutions.
The race for Markets in Crypto Assets (MiCA) licenses may be over, but the European crypto industry is entering a far more decisive phase — that of consolidation. As the European Regulation on Markets in Crypto-Assets takes effect and the United Kingdom finalizes its own framework under the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), a new dynamic is emerging: traditional banks, already equipped with robust compliance infrastructures, are positioning themselves to acquire or partner with native crypto players. The question is no longer “who will get a license,” but “who will survive the long-term costs of compliance.”
This article offers an in-depth analysis of this structural transformation, examining both regulatory frameworks — European and British — their implications for different market participants, and the outlook for the European crypto landscape by 2028-2030.
MiCA: A Pioneering Framework with Unforeseen Consequences
The Markets in Crypto Assets (MiCA) regulation, which has been gradually taking effect since 2024-2025, represents the world’s first attempt to create a comprehensive and harmonized regulatory framework for digital assets on a continental scale. With its 150 articles covering the issuance, trading, custody, and provision of services on crypto-assets, MiCA has set a global benchmark.
In doing so, however, it has also created a considerable barrier to entry. According to several specialized law firms consulted by CoinDesk, the annual compliance costs for a medium-sized exchange or custodian under MiCA can reach several hundred thousand euros. This amount includes:
- Minimum capital requirements (€125,000 to €150,000 depending on the services offered);
- Mandatory external audits;
- Automated regulatory reporting systems;
- Implementation of KYC/AML procedures compliant with AMLD standards;
- Strict segregation of client assets (safeguarding);
- Appointment of a full-time compliance officer;
- Obligations for transparency and publication of order books.
For a typical crypto company generating €1 to €5 million in annual revenue, these costs represent a significant — and potentially unsustainable — portion of their operating budget. “The race for MiCA licenses is over, but the next phase will not be defined by victories in authorization,” explains Jamie Crawley, a journalist at CoinDesk. “It will be defined by mergers, acquisitions, and collaborations between native crypto players and established financial institutions.”
The observation is striking: the very same regulatory framework intended to legitimize and secure the crypto industry could paradoxically accelerate its centralization — a phenomenon well known in traditional finance.
The British Model: Integration into Existing Financial Law
In the United Kingdom, the approach adopted by the FCA is fundamentally different — and potentially even more demanding for native crypto players. Whereas MiCA creates an autonomous regime specifically calibrated for crypto-assets, the FCA proposes to integrate crypto activities into the existing regulatory architecture of British financial services.
In practical terms, a digital asset service provider would be treated like any other traditional financial institution — subject to the same prudential, operational, and client protection requirements. “The FCA is really trying to help competition, and it’s really trying to help new entrants,” explains Steven Lightstone, a partner at Morgan Lewis in London and co-head of the firm’s fintech team. “But it has very high standards, particularly regarding consumers.”
The most burdensome provision of the British framework is undoubtedly the application of the Client Assets Sourcebook (CASS). This regime, already familiar to traditional banks and brokers, imposes a strict segregation of client assets through trust mechanisms. In the crypto context, this means:
- Segregation of clients’ crypto-assets from those of the company;
- Enhanced operational controls around private keys (multi-signature, cold wallets);
- Daily reconciliation of balances;
- Mandatory external CASS audits;
- A strict liability regime in the event of asset loss.
“The CASS requirements are very burdensome,” emphasizes Lightstone. “This could encourage new entrants to merge with, or be acquired by, a traditional company already subject to CASS and that has these controls in place.”
Where MiCA creates a new regime, the FCA integrates crypto-assets into an existing system that has already proven its ability to filter out the most robust players. The end result might be the same — a concentration of the market around institutions capable of bearing compliance costs — but the path taken is radically different.
Switzerland as a Laboratory for Europe’s Future
To understand what awaits the European Union and the United Kingdom, the Swiss case is instructive. Since the introduction of its legislation on distributed ledger technology (DLT) in 2021, the Confederation has created a regulatory environment conducive to crypto innovation without sacrificing investor protection.
The results speak for themselves. Today, nearly 75% of major Swiss banks offer digital asset services — custody, trading, staking, tokenization. Switzerland also hosts the “Crypto Valley” in the canton of Zug, one of the most dynamic blockchain ecosystems in the world, with over 1,000 companies and a cumulative market capitalization exceeding $400 billion.
“We see a clear trend towards regulated institutions,” states Simon Schneider, CEO of Sygnum Europe, one of the world’s first regulated digital asset banks. “Banks already have the relationships, they already have the distribution network, and they already have the entire regulatory compliance framework in place. Today, less than 20% of European banks offer any type of crypto services. This is a heavily underserved market.”
Sygnum itself perfectly illustrates the trend. Rather than competing with traditional banks to attract retail clients, it has made the strategic choice to position itself as a regulated infrastructure provider for financial institutions. This evolution could foreshadow the dominant model for European crypto in the coming years: technology specialists working in the shadow of banks, rather than well-known consumer brands.
The Forgotten Ones of Regulation: Small Structures and Startups
For native crypto companies that did not obtain a MiCA license or are struggling to bear compliance costs, the prospects are limited. Four main options are available to them, none of which is ideal:
- Merge with a better-capitalized competitor to pool regulatory costs and achieve critical mass. This option entails a loss of independence but allows for a continued European presence.
- Be acquired by a bank or financial institution looking to quickly integrate crypto capabilities without developing them in-house. The acquisition price is generally lower than the perceived value, but business continuity is assured.
- Refocus on non-European markets by abandoning the EU and the UK. This is the option chosen by several international exchanges that have preferred to withdraw from Europe rather than invest in local compliance.
- Simply cease European operations. Several medium-sized companies have already announced the closure of their services to European clients rather than face the costs of MiCA.
Simon Schneider anticipates a gradual transfer of assets to regulated providers. “Assets will migrate to regulated institutions as companies that have not obtained MiCA licenses reduce their European operations,” he predicts. However, he specifies that self-custody and institutional custody will continue to coexist — “we will retain these two concepts.”
This duality is crucial for understanding the future of the market: more sophisticated retail investors will continue to use non-custodial solutions (MetaMask, Ledger, etc.), while institutional investors and the general public will turn en masse to banks and regulated platforms. The market will split in two, with radically different requirements, risks, and returns.
The Great Return of Banks to Crypto
The prospect of consolidation arrives at a pivotal moment: banks are more willing than ever to enter digital assets. The regulatory uncertainty that had paralyzed banking innovation for years is beginning to dissipate, and with it, the reluctance of boards of directors.
Several signals confirm this movement:
- In France, Société Générale launched its subsidiary SG Forge, which has become a major player in stablecoins and regulated digital assets;
- In Germany, Deutsche Bank obtained a crypto custody license and is exploring tokenization services;
- In the UK, Barclays and HSBC have multiplied partnerships with crypto infrastructure providers;
- In Switzerland, UBS has integrated digital asset trading and custody services for its institutional clientele;
- In Spain, BBVA and Santander have deployed crypto services in several European countries.
Rather than completely replacing native crypto players, banks are favoring a “technology partnership” approach. They rely on specialized infrastructure providers for custody, brokerage, staking, and tokenization, while retaining the client relationship and distribution. This is precisely the niche Sygnum has chosen to occupy — providing regulated infrastructure to banks rather than competing for end customers.
This “B2B for crypto” approach could well become the dominant model for the sector. Banks bring distribution, client trust, and compliance; crypto companies bring technology, liquidity, and digital asset expertise. This division of labor has proven successful in other fintech sectors.
Structural Consequences for the European Market
Several major implications are emerging for the European crypto industry over the next 3 to 5 years:
Drastic reduction in the number of players: Small crypto fintechs that cannot bear compliance costs...
Analyse détaillée réservée aux membres
Notre équipe d'analystes a préparé une analyse complète avec données exclusives.
9.9€ /mois✅ Accès 88 analyses Starter ✅ Newsletter quotidienne ✅ Annulation à tout moment🔒 Paiement sécurisé • Stripe • Sans engagement
Déjà abonné ? Connectez-vous
