European regulators are now tracking the next phase of Europe’s MiCA transition, with crypto-asset service providers without the required authorization winding down their EU operations after the end of the transitional period.
The development follows The Crypto Times’ August 6 report on scammers impersonating regulators and crypto exchanges to exploit the migration. That earlier warning focused on how fraudsters were using fake notices and websites to target users moving assets from firms leaving the EU market.
Since then, the regulatory picture provides a clearer view of the scale of the transition. ESMA’s Interim MiCA Register showed roughly 323 authorized crypto-asset service providers at the end of July 2026, compared with about 194 in May, according to the register’s published entries.
The updated figure also highlights the sharp difference between the number of firms now operating under the EU’s authorization framework and the much larger number of entities that previously operated under national regimes.
MiCA Migration Enters Its Next Phase
MiCA’s transitional period ended on July 1, 2026, although individual EU member states applied different transition timelines. Firms that did not obtain the required authorization must wind down their EU activities rather than continue onboarding or marketing to clients.
ESMA had already urged unauthorized crypto-asset service providers to stop onboarding new EU clients and limit activity to an orderly wind-down. The regulator also said national authorities could take enforcement action against firms that continued operating without authorization. The register is also changing as national authorities grant new authorizations and ESMA updates the published entries.
Authorized Provider Count Continues to Change
ESMA’s Interim MiCA Register listed roughly 323 authorized providers at the end of July, up from about 194 in May. The number is not static. National regulators continue to grant authorizations, while ESMA updates the register as information becomes available.
The figure also should not be presented as a direct one-to-one comparison with the thousands of crypto firms that previously operated across Europe. National registration systems differed in their definitions, scope and treatment of entities, meaning the two figures measure different regulatory populations. That distinction is important when assessing claims about how many firms have been forced out of the EU market.
Industry executives have also pointed to consolidation as a likely consequence of the licensing transition. In a statement shared with The Crypto Times, Erald Ghoos, CEO of OKX Europe, said OKX estimated that only around 200 of Europe’s 1,100 to 1,300 crypto service providers had secured MiCA licenses. Ghoos said the company had expected roughly 80% of exchanges not to survive the transition, while stating that more than 240 crypto businesses had already ceased operations in Lithuania when its transition period ended in 2025. He added that smaller licensed firms facing scale pressures may consider operating independently, partnering with larger companies or pursuing acquisitions.
Ghoos also said OKX was open to evaluating European businesses that could strengthen its regional operations or add capabilities, while emphasizing that acquisitions would be assessed on strategic value rather than simply to accumulate licenses. OKX already holds MiCA, MiFID II, and Payment Institution licenses in Europe, according to Ghoos.
Industry Estimates Remain Separate From Official Counts
Estimates that more than 1,700 crypto platforms could be affected by the MiCA transition have circulated through industry sources, including VASPnet. Similarly, estimates that millions of users could be affected by the migration are not based on a single official EU-wide count.
These figures can help illustrate the potential scale of the transition, but they should not be described as confirmed numbers from ESMA or another EU regulator. The Crypto Times could not independently verify an official EU-wide tally exactly matching those estimates.
The distinction is particularly relevant because the regulatory transition is still developing and authorization numbers continue to change.
Scam Risk Remains During the Migration
The updated regulatory picture does not eliminate the fraud risk highlighted in The Crypto Times’ earlier report.
ESMA previously told the Financial Times that it was aware of criminals misusing its name, logo and forged documents. The Dutch Authority for the Financial Markets (AFM) also warned that scammers could target consumers looking for an authorized provider after their existing service exited the market.
The key issue is that the underlying migration is legitimate. Users may genuinely receive instructions from an existing provider to withdraw assets or change services, creating an opportunity for scammers to imitate those communications.
However, regulators’ warnings establish awareness of impersonation activity; they do not by themselves establish a quantified increase in losses specifically attributable to the MiCA transition.
How Users Can Check a Provider
Users moving assets should independently verify that a crypto provider is authorized before transferring funds. The ESMA Interim MiCA Register provides a central source for checking authorized crypto-asset service providers. Users should also consult the relevant national regulator where appropriate.
MiCA authorization applies to the specific legal entity listed in the authorization. A similarly branded company within the same corporate group or a non-EU entity using the same brand should not automatically be treated as covered by the authorization.
Users should also avoid relying on links contained in unsolicited migration messages. Instead, they should navigate independently to the provider’s official website or app and verify any withdrawal or migration instructions there.
What Comes Next
The end of the transitional period marks a shift from preparation to enforcement and market consolidation. The number of authorized providers is likely to continue changing as regulators process applications and firms complete their exits. At the same time, users who remain with providers that cannot serve them under MiCA will continue to face decisions about where to move their assets.
Danny Sanders, chief commercial officer at hardware-wallet company Trezor, described the transition to The Crypto Times as creating “regulatory refugees” among European crypto users whose exchanges can no longer serve them under the new framework. Sanders argued that users moving to licensed platforms could face more compliance requirements and restrictions, while some users seeking greater control over their assets may turn to self-custody.
“An account on an exchange was never the same as holding the coins,” Sanders said. “Self-custody is the only version of this that was ever actually yours.”
That makes verification particularly important even after the July 1 deadline has passed. The regulatory transition may be further along, but the opportunity for impersonation scams remains.
The Bottom Line
The MiCA story has moved from the deadline itself to the reshaping of Europe’s crypto market. ESMA’s register showed roughly 323 authorized providers at the end of July, while firms without the required authorization continue to wind down their EU activities.
The scam risk highlighted in The Crypto Times’ August 6 report remains relevant, but the latest regulatory data adds a clearer picture of the market’s post-deadline structure. Industry estimates about the number of affected platforms and users should remain clearly labeled as estimates rather than official EU figures.
For users, the key safeguard remains unchanged: verify the legal entity and its authorization through official regulatory registers and independently confirm any migration instructions before moving assets or sharing sensitive information.
Also Read: GENIUS Deadline Missed, CLARITY Act Stalls on Ethics: USA’s 2 Crypto Laws Stuck
