Banks have doubled their presence on the European Union’s MiCA register to about 80 institutions in less than three months, raising their share of listed crypto providers to nearly 23%.

According to an analysis of European Securities and Markets Authority register data, banks accounted for almost one in four listed crypto-asset service providers as of Sep. 16, up from about one in six on June 26.

The number of banks listed in the register rose by approximately 100% during the period, while the full group of crypto-asset service providers increased by about 44%. Banks therefore gained market share even as crypto exchanges, custodians and other non-bank firms continued to enter the regulated EU market.

Non-bank providers still make up most of the register. Their number increased from about 203 to 269 between the two dates, but their share fell from roughly 84% to 77% because banks entered at a faster rate.

ESMA’s interim MiCA register, last updated on Sep. 16, includes authorized or notified service providers whose information was submitted by national regulators. ESMA publishes a new version each week, so recently approved or notified providers may not appear immediately.

German banks account for much of the MiCA growth

Germany supplied many of the new banking entries, with the register adding commercial lenders as well as institutions from the country’s Volksbank, Raiffeisenbank and VR Bank networks.

Deutsche Bank is among the latest large lenders preparing regulated digital-asset services. The bank announced plans on Wednesday to offer crypto custody to institutional and corporate clients in Europe, while a spokesperson told Cointelegraph that it expects MiCA approval for the service in October.

The participation of regional cooperative banks shows that Germany’s expansion is not confined to global financial groups. Local institutions that already serve retail and business customers are also adding regulated crypto services through their existing banking structures.

In August, crypto.news reported six additions from Germany’s cooperative banking network: Raiffeisenbank Aidlingen, Ihre Volksbank, VR Bank Mittelfranken Mitte, Volksbank Euskirchen, VR Bank Ried Überwald and Volksbank Backnang.

At the time, Germany had 79 authorized crypto-asset service providers, compared with 35 in France and 29 in the Netherlands. The six additions raised the EU-wide count to 331, before another 18 providers brought the Sep. 16 register total to 349.

Germany’s earlier entries included Raiffeisenbank Falkenstein Wörth, Spar und Kreditbank Rheinstetten, VR Bank Augsburg Ostallgäu and JT Technologies. BNY’s Belgian banking subsidiary had also entered the register with permission to provide crypto custody and transfer services.

Service permissions vary among the listed institutions. A place on the register does not mean every provider can offer the same products because MiCA separately covers custody, crypto transfers, trading platforms, order execution, portfolio management and exchanges between crypto assets and funds.

MiCA gives banks a separate entry route

Banks do not follow the same authorization process as companies created specifically to offer crypto services.

Under Article 60 of MiCA, an EU credit institution may provide crypto-asset services after sending the required information to its home regulator at least 40 working days before starting the activity. A crypto-native company must instead apply for authorization as a crypto-asset service provider under Article 62.

The notification must describe the services the bank intends to provide and include information on governance, internal controls, risk management, security arrangements and the protection of client assets. The regulator reviews whether the submission is complete before the services begin.

Existing banking authorization does not remove the operational requirements attached to crypto custody, trading or transfers. It does, however, allow a credit institution to extend its regulated business without completing the full CASP application used by non-bank firms.

Banks also enter the sector with compliance teams, customer-verification procedures, capital resources and reporting systems already in place. Crypto companies must build or acquire many of the same controls to obtain and retain authorization.

A July report on MiCA compliance costs found that continuing duties covering governance, capital, market conduct, complaints, cybersecurity and anti-money laundering could place more pressure on small providers. The report said such costs could lead some firms to pursue bank partnerships, acquisitions or sales.

Commenting on comparable rules planned in Britain, Morgan Lewis partner Steven Lightstone said crypto firms would be “treated like any normal traditional financial institution.” Banks already operate many of the governance and financial-crime systems required under such regimes.

MiCA has reduced the gap between banks and crypto firms

MiCA’s passporting system allows an authorized provider to serve customers across the EU after securing approval in one member state, although national regulators remain responsible for granting authorizations and receiving bank notifications.

Full enforcement followed the end of the EU transition period on July 1. ESMA instructed providers without authorization to stop covered services, follow their wind-down plans and help customers transfer assets to an authorized business or a self-hosted wallet.

More than 3,000 crypto businesses had operated through earlier national registration systems, while only 194 had obtained MiCA approval by May. The register reached 309 providers by July 23, 331 in August and 349 by Sep. 16.

Banks accounted for around 40 of the 243 entries recorded in late June. By mid-September, their number had reached about 80, meaning they supplied roughly 40 of the 106 net additions made during the period.

Non-bank firms added approximately 66 entries during the same window, leaving them well ahead in total number but behind banks in growth rate. Their falling percentage does not mean providers left the register in net terms; it resulted from banks increasing their numbers more quickly.

US banks follow a different regulatory structure

American banks can also provide some digital-asset services, although the United States does not have an equivalent to MiCA’s single authorization and passporting framework.

In May 2025, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency clarified custody authority for national banks and federal savings associations. Interpretive Letter 1184 confirmed that regulated institutions may execute purchases and sales of crypto held in custody when directed by customers.

The OCC also allows banks to outsource permitted crypto activities, including custody and execution, to third parties if they maintain suitable third-party risk controls. Institutions must still conduct the services safely and comply with all applicable laws.

Unlike MiCA, the U.S. approach divides oversight among federal and state agencies according to the institution, asset, and service involved. MiCA places covered EU crypto services under a common rulebook, while allowing an already regulated credit institution to enter through the 40-working-day notification procedure.

European banks are stepping up their footprint in the region’s regulated crypto market under MiCA, and the shift is showing up clearly in the official ESMA provider register. In a short period ending Sept. 16, banks moved from being a minor share of MiCA-registered crypto service activity to one of the most visible categories of new entrants.

According to an analysis by Cointelegraph of data published by the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), the number of banks listed as crypto-asset service providers under MiCA doubled to around 80 from roughly 40 between June 26 and Sept. 16. Over the same window, the total number of crypto-asset service providers (CASPs) on the register rose from 243 to 349, but non-bank providers declined in relative terms.

Key takeaways

• Banks nearly doubled on ESMA’s MiCA register, rising to about 80 from roughly 40 between June 26 and Sept. 16.
• The total CASP count increased from 243 to 349, but banks gained share as the market expanded.
• Banks’ share climbed from about 17% in late June to nearly 23% by September, while non-bank providers fell from about 84% to 77%.
• Germany accounted for much of the banking expansion, with both large lenders and regional cooperative banks adding MiCA-related entries.

Banking growth outpaces other CASP categories

The MiCA provider landscape expanded quickly in the second half of 2024, but not all categories grew at the same pace. ESMA’s MiCA register shows that while the overall number of listed CASPs grew substantially, banks added entries faster than non-bank providers, which translated into a noticeable change in market composition.

Cointelegraph’s analysis indicates that non-bank firms still represent the majority of the register in absolute terms and continued to grow numerically. However, their proportion dropped from around 84% to 77% as banks increased their presence. That divergence matters for investors and industry participants because it suggests that regulated access to crypto services is increasingly being pursued through traditional financial rails rather than solely through native crypto companies.

Germany leads the push, from big banks to local cooperatives

Germany appears to be the main driver behind the rapid bank-led expansion. ESMA’s MiCA register additions include dozens of cooperative and commercial banks, indicating that MiCA-compliant crypto activity is reaching beyond a narrow group of international institutions.

One of the most prominent examples is Deutsche Bank, Germany’s largest lender. Cointelegraph reported that Deutsche Bank announced plans to launch digital asset custody services for institutional and corporate clients in Europe. In comments relayed to Cointelegraph, a Deutsche Bank spokesperson said the bank expects to receive regulatory approval for the offering under MiCA in October.

Beyond Deutsche Bank, Germany’s increase also includes multiple Volksbank, Raiffeisenbank, and VR Bank institutions. The presence of these regional cooperative networks underscores that MiCA adoption is not limited to a handful of large investment banks; instead, regulated crypto services are spreading through a broader set of established banking structures.

MiCA’s “bank route” differs from standard CASP authorization

Part of the reason banks can expand quickly lies in how MiCA treats credit institutions. Unlike crypto companies that must go through a formal CASP authorization process, banks can provide crypto-asset services using a separate notification procedure.

ESMA’s MiCA framework outlines that, under Article 60, a credit institution may offer crypto-asset services if it submits the required information to its home regulator at least 40 working days before starting to provide those services for the first time. ESMA’s interactive single rulebook includes the specific application and authorization rules for CASPs and the different approach for credit institutions.

This route effectively allows banks to enter the MiCA-regulated environment without the same authorization steps required of non-bank providers. For the market, that difference can influence the speed at which firms become visible on the ESMA register and can help explain why banks’ share increased even as the number of CASPs overall climbed.

Still, the practical impact of these notifications—such as what specific services are offered, how quickly institutions move from notification to full rollout, and what oversight looks like across jurisdictions—remains something readers should watch as more banks publish their plans.

What to watch next

The next phase of MiCA implementation is likely to be defined less by whether banks can enter the register and more by how quickly they translate notifications into operational services and compliant offerings. As ESMA data continues to update, investors and users will want to monitor which banks move beyond announcements and what kinds of crypto-asset services become most common in the regulated pipeline.

Binance is pushing deeper into traditional finance-inspired trading by launching foreign exchange (FX) perpetual futures that are designed to trade around the clock. The exchange will start with a US dollar–Brazilian real contract, priced and settled in crypto—highlighting how major venues are trying to capture demand for currency exposure beyond conventional market hours.

Binance said the new USDBRLUSDT perpetual will go live on Sept. 21 and settle in USDT. The contract is positioned as a 24/7 offering, with up to 100x leverage, and uses a dual-mode pricing approach to mimic FX market continuity when global trading desks are typically closed.

Key takeaways

• Binance will launch a USDBRLUSDT 24/7 FX perpetual futures contract on Sept. 21, settling in USDT.
• The product uses two different pricing methods: index-based pricing during normal FX hours and an orderbook-based mechanism on weekends and public holidays.
• Binance aims to extend “price discovery” for currency pairs outside traditional FX trading windows.
• This move follows a broader wave of crypto exchanges launching FX perpetuals, including Bybit’s 24/7 versions and Kraken’s earlier FX perpetual lineup.

How Binance’s FX perpetuals will price outside market hours

Traditional FX markets typically pause over weekends, leaving gaps in how currency prices evolve. Binance’s approach is meant to reduce those discontinuities for traders who want continuous exposure to currency moves.

According to Binance’s announcement, the contract will follow a weighted index during regular FX trading hours. The index is sourced from third-party data providers, reflecting how real-world FX pricing is typically aggregated.

When traditional trading is closed—during weekends and public holidays—Binance will switch to an orderbook-based pricing system. The exchange said this weekend method uses an exponentially weighted moving average (EWMA) of orderbook prices, rather than relying on external price feeds. In practice, that means the contract can continue to reflect supply and demand in the Binance derivatives orderbook even when off-chain FX venues are offline.

Why 24/7 FX perpetuals matter for crypto traders

FX perpetual futures are structured so traders can take directional positions on currency pairs without needing to own the underlying currencies. For crypto market participants, that can be useful for hedging or for expressing views on macro variables as price action develops across time zones.

Binance’s trading head Shunyet Jan said the goal is to extend price discovery beyond traditional FX trading hours while offering a venue for trading and hedging around the clock. That framing matters because many crypto traders already operate in a continuous-hours environment; the addition of FX exposure without weekend gaps aims to align derivatives access more closely with crypto’s always-on trading rhythm.

From a market-structure perspective, the decision to settle in USDT also reduces friction for crypto-native accounts, while keeping settlement tied to a stablecoin rather than to physical currency delivery.

FX perpetuals are spreading across exchanges

Binance’s launch is part of a trend in which crypto derivatives platforms are expanding beyond crypto-asset pairs and into currency markets. The move comes less than two weeks after Bybit introduced its own 24/7 perpetual futures tracking several major currency pairs: EUR/USD, GBP/USD, and USD/JPY. Bybit’s contracts also settle in USDT and offer up to 100x leverage, according to earlier coverage of Bybit’s launch.

Other exchanges entered FX perpetuals earlier. Kraken, for example, launched FX perpetual futures tracking multiple currencies—euro, British pound, Australian dollar, Japanese yen, and Swiss franc—in April 2025. Kraken’s earlier product reportedly offered up to 50x leverage, and the exchange said it had been providing spot FX trading since 2020, citing $5.7 billion in FX spot volume for the first part of 2025.

The competitive set matters because these products don’t just add “another” derivative—they target a market with far larger activity than most individual crypto instruments. The underlying FX market is enormous: a Bank for International Settlements report cited in the original announcement states global OTC FX turnover averaged $9.6 trillion per day in April 2025, underscoring why exchanges view FX exposure as a durable demand pool.

What to watch next

With Binance starting the next 24/7 FX perpetual cycle using a dual pricing mechanism, traders will likely pay close attention to liquidity, spreads, and whether the weekend EWMA orderbook pricing produces stable, predictable behavior across holidays. More broadly, the key question is whether crypto-based venues can provide credible currency price discovery when traditional FX markets are closed—and how quickly competitors respond with additional pairs or pricing refinements.

Bitwise CIO Matt Hougan changed his view after the Senate failed to advance the CLARITY Act. He now sees the setback as temporary rather than a threat to the crypto rally. His revised case rests on market strength, institutional activity, and federal rulemaking.

Bitcoin Supports Hougan After CLARITY Act Setback

Bitcoin became the main evidence behind Hougan’s change because its rally continued while passage expectations weakened. Bitwise data shows Bitcoin bottomed near $57,950 on July 1 and later moved above $80,000 on September 4. Meanwhile, Polymarket odds for 2026 passage fell from 39% to 18% during the same period.

That divergence weakened Hougan’s earlier argument that failed legislation could stall the crypto bull cycle. He had previously linked regulatory progress with stronger market confidence and warned that declining passage odds could pressure prices. However, Bitcoin advanced for much of the period even as the bill’s political path deteriorated.

The Senate rejected cloture on September 15 by a 49-50 vote, well below the required 60 votes. Bitcoin then fell about 4% as markets absorbed the failed vote and wider concerns around rates and oil. Still, Hougan now argues that congressional action is not the only path supporting continued crypto development.

Ethereum Focus Shifts Toward SEC and CFTC Rulemaking

Ethereum also weakened after the Senate vote, but federal agencies quickly remained active on crypto market rules. SEC Chair Paul Atkins had already said his agency could address major CLARITY Act issues through existing rulemaking authority. The SEC then continued Project Crypto and advanced measures aimed at moving more financial activity onto blockchain networks.

The agency issued a temporary innovation exemption on September 17 for certain tokenized stock trading venues. That action allows limited onchain trading under defined conditions while the SEC considers longer-term rules. The move supports Hougan’s argument that regulatory work can continue even when comprehensive legislation stalls.

The CFTC has also expanded its crypto work under Chair Michael Selig and its broader innovation agenda. On September 17, staff extended no-action relief covering certain passive software providers involved with regulated trading access. Hougan therefore expects agency proposals to become the next major regulatory catalysts for Ethereum and the broader market.

XRP Selloff Shows Policy Risk Remains

XRP recorded a sharper reaction than Bitcoin after the failed Senate vote, showing that policy risk still affects altcoins. Reports placed XRP near $1.29 after the decision, while the broader crypto market faced heavy leveraged liquidations. The reaction showed that congressional setbacks can still trigger fast repricing even when longer-term regulation continues elsewhere.

However, Hougan’s updated thesis separates short-term volatility from the broader direction of crypto policy and adoption. His view now gives more weight to regulatory agencies and financial firms already building blockchain products. Bitwise cited Robinhood, Morgan Stanley, and DTCC as examples of firms expanding crypto activity before legislative certainty arrived.

The CLARITY Act remains stalled, and agency rules carry less permanence than legislation passed by Congress. Future administrations can revise regulations, while Congress can create more durable authority and market structure. For now, Hougan sees written SEC and CFTC proposals as the next key signals for Bitcoin, Ethereum, and XRP.

TRON Inc., a TRX digital asset treasury firm, was receiving its TRX from an HTX wallet until shortly after HTX was sanctioned.

It then transitioned to receiving TRX from an HTX-funded wallet.

TRON Inc. is advised by Justin Sun and is chaired by Weike Sun, Justin’s father.

Read more: CHART: Strategy and TRON Inc. down bad compared to bitcoin this year

Advertisement

We know that TEySEZLJf6rs2mCujGpDEsgoMVWKLAk9mT is the treasury address for TRON Inc. thanks to its daily posts on X and a press release attached to its form 8-K.

This address was previously receiving its daily purchases of TRX from TFTWNgDBkQ5wQoP8RXpRznnHvAVV8x5jLu, an address labeled on TRONSCAN as “HTX 4,” and which was previously included in the HTX proof-of-reserves disclosures.

This started to change a few days after the United Kingdom Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office sanctioned Huobi Global S.A., an entity related to the HTX exchange.

These sanctions landed on May 26, and the daily transfers from HTX 4 continued until the final one on May 29.

Also on May 29, HTX 4 funded an address with a single TRX, TYyriWzf7AW75hwiVB4oDBrJGThidZuRTd (TYyr).

Advertisement

This was followed by funding it with more TRX, which allowed TYyr to step into the breach and become the address that was sending TRON Inc. its daily TRX.

TYyr has also received TRX from TK86Qm97uM848dMk8G7xNbJB7zG1uW3h1n, an address which is labeled as “HTX 5” and is still disclosed in the HTX proof of reserves.

TRON Inc. now generally receives from TWhDfwC8QE6pQyiYy248dNor3uphPEw5M2.

Most of that address’ TRX comes from Binance, but it has also received from HTX-affiliated addresses.

BiT Global

TRON Inc.’s disclosures have previously noted that it has purchased TRX from Justin Sun-linked BiT Global for its dollar-cost-averaging daily purchases.

Advertisement

Additionally, TRON Inc. notes that it has hired BiT Global to “be the custodian of the treasury wallet.”

The same disclosure also claims, “The Company retains sole control of the treasury wallet and private keys in Hong Kong. Mr. Weike Sun and Mr. Zi Yang, our directors, are authorized by the board to make the arrangement for safeguarding and operating the private keys of the treasury wallet.”

Read more: BiT Global cannot force Coinbase to relist WBTC in lawsuit yet

One of the directors of TRON Inc., Zhihong Liu, is also a director for BiT Global Trust Limited in Hong Kong.

Advertisement

BiT Global is also one of the custodians for Justin Sun-advised Wrapped Bitcoin.

Broadly, these transactions purportedly from BiT Global coming from HTX-controlled wallets to Justin Sun-advised TRON Inc. point towards the deep relationships between Sun entities.

Got a tip? Send us an email securely via Protos Leaks. For more informed news and investigations, follow us on X, Bluesky, and Google News, or subscribe to our YouTube channel.

Advertisement