MiCA is the European Union’s first comprehensive rulebook for crypto, and on July 1, 2026, its transition period ends for good. This guide explains what MiCA does, why USDT got delisted while USDC did not, and what the hard deadline means for exchanges and users.

MiCA, short for Markets in Crypto-Assets, is the European Union’s first comprehensive law governing crypto-assets and the companies that deal in them, creating one common rulebook across all twenty-seven member states in place of the patchwork of national approaches that came before. Formally known as Regulation (EU) 2023/1114, it entered into force in mid-2023 and has rolled out in phases ever since, and it now sits at a decisive moment: on July 1, 2026, the transition period that let existing crypto firms keep operating under old national rules expires for good, and Europe’s market supervisor has been blunt that there will be no extensions. 

After that date, any company offering crypto services to European Union clients without a proper MiCA license is simply breaking the law. This guide explains what MiCA is, the categories it creates, why some stablecoins survived in Europe while others were delisted, what a crypto company must do to comply, and what the hard 2026 deadline means for exchanges and ordinary users alike.

The significance of MiCA is hard to overstate, because the European Union is one of the largest economic blocs on earth and MiCA is the most ambitious attempt yet to bring crypto fully inside a traditional financial-regulation framework. Before MiCA, a crypto exchange or token issuer operating in Europe faced a confusing mix of national rules, with one regime in Germany, another in France, another in Malta, and gaps everywhere in between. 

MiCA replaces that fragmentation with a single, harmonized system: get authorized once, and you can passport your services across the entire bloc. The trade-off is that the bar to get authorized is high, the obligations are heavy, and the deadline to clear them is now days away rather than years off. The result is a market being reshaped in real time, with a small number of licensed winners, a large number of firms facing exit, and a stablecoin landscape that already looks very different inside Europe than outside it.

What MiCA actually regulates

MiCA divides the crypto world into categories and applies different rules to each, so the first step in understanding it is learning what those categories are. At the top level, MiCA governs two kinds of actors: the issuers of crypto-assets and the providers of crypto-asset services. For issuers, MiCA sorts tokens into three buckets.

The first is electronic money tokens, or EMTs, which are stablecoins pegged to a single official currency, such as a euro-pegged or dollar-pegged coin. The second is asset-referenced tokens, or ARTs, which are stablecoins backed by a basket of things, multiple currencies, commodities, or other assets, rather than a single currency. The third is a catch-all category of other crypto-assets, which covers utility tokens, governance tokens, and unbacked cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin and Ether, the assets most exchanges handle every day.

Each bucket carries different obligations. The two stablecoin categories face the strictest treatment, because regulators view stablecoins as the part of crypto most capable of threatening the wider financial system, a concern sharpened by the 2022 collapse of the TerraUSD algorithmic stablecoin that wiped out tens of billions of dollars. EMT and ART issuers must hold proper reserves, grant holders redemption rights, and meet governance and disclosure standards. 

The other crypto-assets face lighter rules, mainly requirements to publish an honest whitepaper before offering a token to the public and to avoid market abuse. Notably, MiCA largely excludes non-fungible tokens, unless they are issued in a large fungible series that makes them function more like ordinary tokens, and it excludes assets already covered by existing financial law, such as securities. The category a token falls into determines almost everything about how MiCA treats it, which is why getting the classification right is the starting point for any issuer.

The stablecoin rules and why USDT got delisted

The most visible effect of MiCA so far has been on stablecoins, and the clearest way to understand the rules is through what happened to the two largest dollar stablecoins. Under MiCA, a stablecoin can only be offered by European Union-regulated platforms if its issuer is authorized, which for a single-currency stablecoin means holding an e-money or credit institution license and meeting MiCA’s reserve, redemption, and governance requirements. 

The reserve rules are strict: an EMT must back its tokens fully, holding one hundred percent of reserves in safe, segregated accounts, while an ART must keep at least a substantial portion segregated at regulated credit institutions. MiCA also bars stablecoin issuers from paying interest or yield to holders, a deliberate choice to stop stablecoins from competing with bank deposits and drawing money out of the banking system.

This is where the two giants diverged. Circle, the issuer of USDC, pursued authorization through a European subsidiary and obtained MiCA approval for USDC and its euro stablecoin EURC, making them compliant and freely offered across European Union exchanges. Tether, the issuer of USDT, the largest stablecoin in the world, did not apply for MiCA authorization and confirmed its token was not compliant. The consequence was swift: major European Union-regulated exchanges, including the regional arms of the largest global platforms, delisted USDT and other non-compliant stablecoins for their European users. 

The nuance worth understanding is that USDT is not banned from existence in Europe; users can still hold it in self-custody and trade it on decentralized exchanges. What changed is that a MiCA-licensed exchange can no longer offer it, which fragments liquidity and pushes European users toward compliant alternatives like USDC. Every stablecoin authorized under MiCA so far has been an EMT, a single-currency token, and USDC’s compliance versus USDT’s non-compliance has become the textbook illustration of the rules in action.

CASPs: the rules for exchanges and service providers

Beyond token issuers, MiCA’s other major target is the companies that provide crypto services, which the regulation calls crypto-asset service providers, or CASPs. This category is broad: it covers exchanges, brokers, custodians, wallet providers that hold customer assets, trading platforms, and firms that advise on or place crypto-assets. 

If your business touches customer crypto in almost any commercial way, you likely need a CASP authorization to keep serving European Union clients. The obligations that come with that authorization are extensive and closely mirror those imposed on traditional financial firms, which is the entire point: MiCA aims to make crypto service providers behave like regulated financial institutions rather than lightly governed startups.

A CASP must meet requirements covering customer identity verification and anti-money-laundering controls, the safekeeping and segregation of customer assets, governance and capital standards, market-conduct rules that prohibit insider trading and market manipulation, and clear disclosure of risks to customers. Authorized CASPs also become subject to the European Union’s operational-resilience framework, which mandates cybersecurity and incident-reporting standards, and to the crypto travel rule, which requires them to pass along sender and recipient information on transfers, the same obligation that has applied to bank wires for decades. 

The reward for shouldering all of this is passporting: once a firm is authorized in any one member state, it can offer its services across all twenty-seven without seeking separate licenses in each, turning a fragmented continent into a single market. The burden is that running these programs at scale, across a global customer base, is expensive and demanding, which is exactly why so many firms are struggling to clear the bar before the deadline.

The July 2026 deadline and the great narrowing

Everything about MiCA now points toward a single date, and understanding the phased rollout explains why that date matters so much. MiCA did not arrive all at once. The stablecoin rules for EMTs and ARTs took effect in mid-2024. The full CASP authorization regime took effect at the end of 2024, the point from which firms needed a MiCA license to operate. 

But MiCA included a grandfathering provision, a transition period that let firms already operating legally under their national rules continue doing so while they applied for full MiCA authorization. Member states set their own transition windows within the limits MiCA allowed, ranging from short windows ending in 2025 to the full eighteen-month period ending on July 1, 2026. That final date is the bloc-wide cutoff, the moment the transition ends everywhere at once.

What makes the deadline dramatic is how few firms have actually cleared the bar. As the cutoff approached in 2026, roughly a couple of hundred firms held some form of full MiCA authorization across the entire union, but the number cleared to run an actual crypto trading platform was strikingly small, in the low double digits, with a number of member states having issued zero trading-platform licenses at all. Industry executives openly warned that a large majority of exchanges currently operating may fail to secure a license and be forced to exit the European market, and reports emerged of major global exchanges facing rejection in specific countries. 

Europe’s market supervisor reinforced the message with no room for ambiguity: no member state may extend the transition beyond July 1, 2026, and after that date, operating without authorization is a breach of European Union law, not a paperwork gap. The picture, then, is of a great narrowing, a market being compressed from a crowded field into a small set of licensed survivors, with the rest required to wind down their European operations or leave.

A worked example: what a token and an exchange each face

To make the rules concrete, it helps to walk through how MiCA treats two typical cases, a stablecoin issuer and an exchange, because the abstract categories become much clearer in motion. Imagine a company issuing a euro-pegged stablecoin and wanting European users to hold and trade it on regulated platforms. 

Under MiCA, that token is an electronic money token, so the issuer must hold an e-money or credit institution license, back every token fully with reserves held in safe, segregated accounts, grant holders the right to redeem their tokens for the underlying currency on demand, publish a compliant whitepaper, and accept that it cannot pay holders any interest or yield. If the company does all of this and secures authorization, its stablecoin can be offered across the bloc; if it does not, regulated exchanges must refuse to list it, exactly the fork in the road that separated the compliant dollar stablecoin from the non-compliant one. The token’s fate under MiCA is decided entirely by whether its issuer accepts this package of obligations.

Now imagine an exchange that wants to keep serving European customers. Its path runs through CASP authorization. It must apply to a national regulator in some member state, prove it meets MiCA’s standards for governance, capital, and the safekeeping and segregation of customer assets, stand up the identity-verification and anti-money-laundering machinery that turns it into an obliged entity under European law, implement the travel rule so it passes sender and recipient information on transfers, meet the operational-resilience and cybersecurity requirements, and submit to ongoing supervision and market-conduct rules. If the regulator grants authorization, the exchange can passport that single license across all twenty-seven member states and operate bloc-wide. 

If it cannot meet the bar or applies too late, it must stop serving European Union clients once the transition ends, winding down in an orderly way. The two journeys share a logic: MiCA offers a single, valuable prize, legal access to the entire European market, in exchange for accepting obligations modeled on those that govern banks and regulated financial firms.

What this worked example reveals is the deeper character of MiCA. It is not a light-touch registration that lets crypto firms keep operating much as before with a new label. It is a serious authorization regime that demands real reserves, real controls, real segregation of customer money, and real accountability, and it forces every issuer and service provider to decide whether the prize of European market access is worth the cost of meeting those demands. 

For well-resourced firms with a long-term commitment to Europe, the answer is often yes, and they have built the compliance machinery to clear the bar. For many smaller or offshore operators, the cost is too high or the timeline too short, which is why the market is narrowing toward a smaller set of licensed survivors. The categories and rules described earlier are not bureaucratic abstractions; they are the concrete hurdles that decide, token by token and firm by firm, who gets to operate in Europe after the transition closes.

What MiCA leaves unsettled

For all its ambition, MiCA leaves important questions open, and the gaps are as revealing as the rules. The largest unsettled area is decentralized finance. MiCA is built around identifiable issuers and service providers, the companies it can authorize and supervise, but a genuinely decentralized protocol has no company at its center, no firm to hold a license or answer to a regulator. MiCA states that fully decentralized arrangements, those provided without any intermediary, fall outside its scope, which sounds clean until you ask what “fully decentralized” actually means. 

The market supervisor has not yet defined the term precisely, and most real protocols sit somewhere in the middle, with a governance token, a development team, a foundation, or a front-end operator that a regulator might decide counts as an intermediary. The result is genuine uncertainty about which DeFi protocols MiCA captures and which it does not, a gap that will be filled by future guidance and enforcement instead of the text itself.

Other tensions are surfacing as the rules meet reality. MiCA places caps on how widely very large stablecoins denominated in non-European currencies, such as dollar stablecoins, can be used as a means of payment within the bloc, a provision aimed at protecting European monetary sovereignty but one that complicates life for a market where most trading is dollar-denominated. 

There are overlaps with other European financial laws, such as payment services rules, that can double the compliance burden for some stablecoin activities and have prompted worries about the competitiveness of euro stablecoins. And politically, the dossier has grown charged, with some member states floating the idea of a mechanism to switch off foreign stablecoins seen as a systemic threat. 

None of these unsettled questions undermines MiCA’s core achievement of creating a single framework, but they are reminders that a law this sweeping cannot anticipate everything, and that MiCA will keep evolving through guidance, enforcement, and amendment for years after the headline deadline passes.

MiCA in the global picture

MiCA does not exist in isolation, and seeing it alongside parallel efforts elsewhere reveals where global crypto regulation is heading. The same years that produced MiCA also produced the United States’ first comprehensive federal stablecoin law, the United Kingdom’s move toward its own crypto regime under its financial regulator, and Hong Kong’s stablecoin ordinance, among others. 

These frameworks differ in detail, but they converge on a striking number of core principles: stablecoin issuers should hold full, high-quality reserves; they should be licensed and supervised; holders should have clear redemption rights; service providers should enforce identity checks and anti-money-laundering controls; and the whole apparatus should be brought inside the regulatory perimeter that governs traditional finance. MiCA, having arrived early and comprehensively, has functioned as something of a reference point that later frameworks echo and respond to.

This convergence matters for anyone trying to understand the trajectory of the industry. The era in which crypto operated in a regulatory vacuum, where an exchange could serve a global audience with minimal oversight, is closing, and MiCA is one of the clearest markers of that shift. The picture that emerges is of a maturing market in which access increasingly depends on compliance, in which the same stablecoin can be freely available in one jurisdiction and delisted in another based purely on its issuer’s regulatory posture, and in which the cost of operating legally has risen sharply. 

For Europe specifically, MiCA’s promise is a safer, more transparent market with clear rules and a public register of authorized firms and tokens that anyone can consult. Its cost is a heavier compliance burden, a narrower field of providers, and reduced access to some popular global assets. Whether that trade favors consumers or stifles innovation is the live debate, but the direction is set: in Europe, crypto is now a regulated activity, and after July 1, 2026, that is true without exception.

What it means for everyday users

For an ordinary person using crypto in Europe, MiCA changes the landscape in concrete ways worth understanding before the deadline instead of after. The most immediate effect is on which platforms and tokens you can use. If you rely on an exchange that has not secured a MiCA license, that platform may be forced to stop serving European Union clients after July 1, 2026, which in practice can mean frozen new deposits, halted trading features, and eventually a forced withdrawal of your funds, sometimes during a period of low liquidity and high fees. The protective move is to check, today instead of on July 2, whether the platforms you use have secured or are clearly on track to secure authorization, and to favor those that have. An unauthorized service operating after the deadline offers reduced legal protection and potential restrictions on access to your own assets.

The second effect is on stablecoins. If you hold a non-compliant stablecoin on a European Union-regulated exchange, you may find it delisted, with trading pairs removed and liquidity drying up, which is why many European users have shifted toward MiCA-authorized options. You can still self-custody whatever you like, but the convenient on-ramps and trading pairs increasingly favor compliant tokens. The broader takeaway is that MiCA, for all its complexity, ultimately aims to make the European crypto market safer and more transparent for users by ensuring the exchanges they trust meet real standards and the stablecoins they hold are genuinely backed. The cost of that safety is fewer choices and more friction, and a transition period that, for some platforms and tokens, ends abruptly. 

The practical wisdom is simple: understand which of your platforms and assets are compliant, make any moves before the deadline instead of during the disruption, and treat MiCA authorization as a meaningful signal that a service has accepted real regulatory accountability.

Frequently Asked Questions

This article is educational information, not legal or financial advice. MiCA implementation, license counts, stablecoin compliance status, and deadlines can change, and details reflect reporting available as of June 25, 2026. Confirm current requirements and the status of specific platforms and tokens through official sources such as the European Securities and Markets Authority register before relying on anything described here.

• GoMining mines first Stratum V2 Bitcoin block with DMND pool.
• Stratum V2 enables miners to choose block transactions directly.
• New system shifts power from pools to miners in Bitcoin mining.

GoMining has mined the first known Bitcoin block produced using the Stratum V2 protocol with the DMND Bitcoin mining pool.

The process demonstrates miner-controlled block creation in a live mining environment.

The block was created using Stratum V2’s Job Declaration functionality through the DMND pool.

The approach allowed GoMining to construct and declare its own block template rather than relying on a mining pool to select transactions.

Pool-controlled transaction selection has been the dominant model in Bitcoin mining for years.

The milestone marks an early real-world implementation of Stratum V2’s miner-driven architecture and highlights a shift toward giving miners greater authority over how blocks are constructed while remaining part of pooled mining operations.

Miner-controlled block construction demonstrated in production

The block included transactions linked to GoMining’s GoBTC Pay, an open-source Bitcoin instant payments protocol developed by the company.

By incorporating GoBTC Pay transactions into the block template it created, GoMining demonstrated a practical use case for Stratum V2’s Job Declaration feature and showed how miners can directly influence the contents of blocks they help produce.

“This block demonstrates that miners can now participate in pooled mining while retaining control over block construction,” said Mark Zalan, CEO at GoMining. “For years, mining pools have largely determined which transactions are included in Bitcoin blocks. By creating our own block template and including GoBTC Pay transactions, we’re demonstrating one of the practical capabilities that Stratum V2 makes possible.”

The successful mining of the block provides an example of how miners may be able to gain more autonomy while continuing to benefit from the shared resources and economics of mining pools.

Stratum V2 aims to expand miner participation and flexibility

Stratum V2 is an open-source mining protocol developed with contributions from multiple participants across the Bitcoin industry.

In addition to improvements in security and efficiency, the protocol enables miners to create their own block templates while still participating in pooled mining.

The latest development demonstrates that miner-controlled block construction can operate in a production environment, potentially supporting broader adoption of Stratum V2 across the mining ecosystem.

The deployment also illustrates how the protocol may allow miners to integrate their own applications and services directly into the block creation process.

“A miner just mined the first Stratum V2 block to power their own product end to end. GoMining declared the template and included their GoBTC Pay payments with no pool in the way. We built DMND for exactly this.” said Alejandro De La Torre, CEO & Co-founder at DMND.

The milestone comes as the bitcoin mining industry continues to explore technologies that improve efficiency, security and decentralization.

By demonstrating that miners can build and declare their own block templates while remaining part of a mining pool, GoMining and DMND have provided an early example of how Stratum V2’s architecture could reshape block creation and transaction selection within the broader Bitcoin mining ecosystem.

Binance has informed European Union users that access to several services will be tightened after the exchange failed to obtain Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) authorization from an EU member state before a July 1 deadline. The change, according to notices circulated by users, centers on stopping onboarding for new EU customers and reducing service availability for EU-based accounts as of July 1.

Importantly, Binance’s messages also emphasize that users will be able to withdraw their digital assets after the deadline. The notices frame the transition as an “orderly process” designed to minimize disruption, while the exchange proceeds with its MiCA rollout in Europe.

Key takeaways

• Binance says it will halt onboarding new EU users and limit certain services for EU accounts effective July 1 after missing MiCA authorization timing.
• Users are told they can still withdraw “all digital assets” after the deadline, subject to applicable regulatory requirements.
• The company reportedly advises EU customers to move funds to self-custody or other crypto asset service providers (CASPs) before access is restricted.
• Questions remain among users about how staking and existing yield-related positions will be handled during the restricted-services phase.
• Industry participants are split on expected user disruption, with some arguing effects are mainly limited to marketing and new customer acquisition.

What Binance is changing for EU users

Multiple public Binance notices shared on social media indicate that access restrictions will begin after the July 1 cutoff. Users reported that the exchange will stop bringing in new EU customers and limit “certain services” for EU-based accounts starting July 1.

While services are expected to narrow, the exchange’s communications are clear that withdrawals remain available. The notices reportedly state that “all digital assets are still available for withdrawal,” aligning with regulatory requirements.

Binance’s step appears tied to how MiCA licensing is being implemented across EU member states. The situation is described as one of the early, high-profile transitions under the EU’s MiCA framework, coming after Binance announced it withdrew its MiCA license application in Greece earlier this week.

Cointelegraph attempted to obtain comment from Binance on its plans but did not receive a response prior to publication.

Why Binance recommends self-custody or switching CASPs

In circulating notices, Binance told users they may consider moving assets to self-custodial wallets or transferring funds to other crypto asset service providers. The exchange characterized the transition as intended to be an “orderly process,” with services reduced to position management and withdrawals after the deadline.

The practical message for EU customers is straightforward: if they want to keep using Binance for broader features, they may need to act before July 1, because some functionality for EU accounts is expected to be scaled back. Binance’s guidance also suggests that the exchange expects limited usability after the cutoff, even if balances remain withdrawable.

Competitors and other MiCA-licensed platforms appear to be positioning themselves for the transition. Media and user reports referenced CASPs such as Revolut and OKX actively recruiting new users in EU member states ahead of the deadline.

Staking, trading, and the unanswered operational details

Beyond onboarding restrictions, users have focused on what happens to active services—particularly staking. In public replies, some Binance users asked what will occur to staked crypto assets after the deadline, reflecting uncertainty over whether yield-generating arrangements will be impacted by the forthcoming changes.

A Binance representative responded that user balances “remain available and safe as always,” but did not offer specific details on staking rewards or the treatment of active positions during the restricted-services period.

That gap matters for EU customers because MiCA compliance is not only about marketing and customer acquisition; it also affects how services are offered and structured. If staking rewards are treated differently, or if certain yield-related operations must pause, traders and long-term holders could experience operational friction even if withdrawals remain possible.

For active traders, the immediate concern is access to trading and position management. Another user said their main use of Binance is as a trading gateway and would switch exchanges if needed, arguing that disruption would likely be most significant for active traders and users with larger balances on the platform.

How the wider industry views the impact

The expected effect of Binance’s EU transition has not been universally interpreted. Some industry figures argue that the real-world impact on existing users may be limited compared with the amount of public attention the deadline has received.

Dominik Tomczyk, CEO of SIA AlphaRoute (operating as Kanga Exchange EU), told Cointelegraph that unlicensed platforms may still continue serving existing users under the legal concept of “reverse solicitation.” From a user perspective, he suggested that “nothing will change,” except for constraints on marketing and user acquisition within the EU.

Sławomir Zawadzki, co-CEO of Kanga Exchange, similarly suggested existing users are unlikely to face major disruptions. He also implied that much of the concern is being overstated and that competitive positioning may be influencing how the narrative is playing out online.

Other EU-based Binance users described a more pragmatic approach—monitoring for enforcement actions rather than assuming immediate harm. One user told Cointelegraph they were not overly concerned about the July 1 deadline, pointing to Binance’s liquidity and proof-of-reserves reporting, and saying they would keep using Binance until they saw evidence of a potential enforcement action.

These differing perspectives highlight a key asymmetry: notices about restrictions can create urgency, but the extent to which existing account functionality is reduced may vary depending on how MiCA rules are applied in practice and how Binance structures permitted activities after the cutoff.

Scale and what to watch after July 1

Binance’s EU footprint is large enough that the outcome will be watched closely by both users and other exchanges. According to Reuters, Binance’s global client base counts at least 300 million customers, and the app was downloaded more than 4 million times in the EU last year.

Even with withdrawal access preserved, EU users will likely pay attention to what “position management” covers once the restrictions start, as well as whether staking-related operations and trading features are curtailed in a way that forces customers to adapt their workflows.

Going forward, the critical signals to watch will be any clarification from Binance on staking and active positions, how quickly EU users migrate to other CASPs, and whether regulators or service providers interpret MiCA in a way that limits service continuity for already-established customers.

Japan’s SBI Holdings has moved to fully take control of the Bitbank cryptocurrency exchange in a deal valued at 46.7 billion yen (about $289 million), building a larger, more consolidated crypto trading platform under one regulated umbrella. The agreement follows an initial announcement made in May, which positioned the combination as a potential scale-up into the country’s largest crypto exchange.

On Thursday, SBI said its wholly owned subsidiary, SBICAH, will acquire Bitbank shares from Bitbank CEO Noriyuki Hirosue and other shareholders, then participate in a third-party share allotment. After that, Bitbank will buy back shares currently held by MIXI and Ceres, leaving SBI with 100% indirect ownership. SBI expects the transaction to close around October, subject to regulatory approval.

Key takeaways

• SBI will pay 46.7 billion yen to gain full indirect control of Bitbank, aiming to accelerate its position in Japan’s regulated exchange market.
• The restructuring plan includes a third-party share allotment and a Bitbank share buyback from MIXI and Ceres, with SBI ending at 100% indirect ownership.
• SBI forecasts the combined group will manage about 1.1 trillion yen in assets under custody and reach roughly 2.92 million crypto accounts, based on end-April figures.
• Bitbank’s trading has been relatively muted for months, with CoinGecko data showing daily volume typically below $50 million over much of the past four months.
• SBI says the enlarged exchange footprint could add another distribution channel for stablecoins, tokenized assets, and onchain financial products.

Why SBI’s Bitbank control matters to Japan’s crypto market

For investors and market participants, the main significance of the Bitbank deal is not only consolidation, but also capacity—SBI is trying to connect an exchange-led customer base with a broader digital-asset product lineup. SBI’s stated goal is to expand its regulated crypto exchange operations and customer reach, which it argues could support distribution of stablecoins, tokenized assets, and other onchain financial services.

In effect, the acquisition is designed to strengthen SBI’s role across multiple layers of Japan’s crypto ecosystem: trading infrastructure, custody and account management, and settlement or product distribution. That matters in a market where regulatory clarity and institutional participation are key constraints—and where distribution channels can be as important as underlying technology.

How the transaction will be structured

SBI’s announcement outlines a multi-step process. First, SBICAH will acquire Bitbank shares from Hirosue and other existing shareholders. It will then subscribe to shares issued through a third-party share allotment. After those steps, Bitbank is expected to repurchase the shares held by MIXI and Ceres.

The result, SBI says, is that the group will hold 100% indirect ownership once the buyback completes. SBI expects the overall deal to close around October, but only after it receives regulatory clearance—an important reminder that Japan’s exchange and stablecoin frameworks rely on approvals and compliance review.

Scale effects: custody and accounts, plus the trading backdrop

Alongside the ownership changes, SBI provided combined operating figures for the enlarged group. According to SBI, combining Bitbank with SBI VC Trade would bring the group to about 1.1 trillion yen in assets under custody and roughly 2.92 million crypto accounts, using data from the end of April.

SBI also claims that this combined business would rank first among Japanese crypto exchanges by assets under custody and among the largest by account numbers. While the exact competitive landscape can shift with market activity and reporting periods, the direction of travel is clear: SBI is targeting scale metrics that are closely watched by institutions, compliance teams, and potential partners.

Trading liquidity is another piece of the picture. CoinGecko data cited by SBI indicates Bitbank’s daily trading volume has generally stayed below $50 million for most of the last four months. The exchange’s activity is heavily concentrated in key fiat pairs—BTC/JPY accounts for 39.5% of volume, with XRP/JPY and ETH/JPY each at 19.7%.

That concentration underscores why integration could matter: combining Bitbank with SBI VC Trade may help SBI manage customer routing, product access, and onchain distribution more efficiently—especially if volumes are expected to respond to broader cross-platform adoption.

SBI’s broader push: stablecoins and tokenized financial markets

The Bitbank acquisition fits into a wider strategy by SBI to extend from trading into digital-asset settlement and tokenized finance. SBI frames the move as additional infrastructure for its evolving product suite.

Earlier this year, SBI and Startale Group unveiled Strium, a layer-1 blockchain intended to support around-the-clock trading and settlement for tokenized equities and real-world assets. In parallel, SBI has been expanding stablecoin-related capabilities in Japan.

Most recently, SBI said that on Wednesday, SBI and Startale launched JPYSC, a yen-pegged stablecoin. SBI stated that the token is issued by SBI Shinsei Trust Bank and distributed by SBI VC Trade. Initially, JPYSC circulation is limited to transfers within SBI VC Trade accounts, with public blockchain circulation planned after resolving outstanding legal and tax conditions.

On the same day, Ripple and SBI Group also launched Ripple USD (RLUSD) in Japan via SBI VC Trade. SBI said RLUSD became available to both institutional and retail customers after receiving approval under Japan’s regulatory framework for foreign-issued stablecoins.

Taken together, these developments highlight why exchange ownership is strategically valuable. If distribution for stablecoins and tokenized instruments depends on access points that regulated exchanges can provide, acquiring a bigger platform and integrating accounts can directly influence adoption timelines—at least from the perspective of product rollout and customer onboarding.

Investors should watch two things next: whether SBI clears the remaining regulatory steps to complete the Bitbank acquisition around October, and how the combined operations evolve in practice—particularly whether SBI can translate scale in accounts and custody into stronger liquidity and smoother distribution for JPYSC, RLUSD, and future tokenized offerings.

Binance has notified European Union users that access to key services will be restricted after the exchange failed to secure Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) authorization from a member state before a July 1 deadline.

Those restrictions include halting the onboarding of new EU users and limiting certain services for EU-based accounts effective July 1, according to exchange notices shared by users on social media.

The notices said users will still be able to withdraw their assets after that date, stating that “all digital assets are still available for withdrawal,” in line with applicable regulatory requirements.

The move marks one of the first major transitions under the EU’s MiCA framework after Binance announced it withdrew its MiCA license application in Greece on Wednesday.

Cointelegraph approached Binance for comment on its plans but did not receive a response prior to the time of publication.

Binance advises moving funds to self-custodial wallets or other exchanges

In circulating notices, Binance told users they may move assets to self-custody wallets or transfer funds to other crypto asset service providers (CASPs).

The exchange operator said the transition is intended to be an “orderly process” aimed at minimizing disruption to users, with services reduced to position management and withdrawals after the deadline.

Source: IT_Tech_PL

Multiple MiCA-licensed CASPs including Revolut and OKX have been actively recruiting new users in EU member states ahead of next week’s deadline.

Users seek clarity on staking and trading

Some Binance users have raised concerns over how specific services will be handled once EU service restrictions take effect after the MiCA transition ends.

In public replies on social media, users asked what will happen to staked crypto assets on Binance after the deadline, reflecting uncertainty around whether yield-generating positions will be affected by the upcoming service changes.

Source: Filipebinance

In response, a Binance representative said user balances “remain available and safe as always,” but did not provide specific details on how staking rewards or active positions will be treated under the restricted-services phase.

Community divides over Binance user impact

Views across the crypto industry differ on how significant the upcoming MiCA transition will be for existing Binance users in the European Union.

Dominik Tomczyk, CEO of SIA AlphaRoute, operating as Kanga Exchange EU, told Cointelegraph that non-licensed platforms may still continue serving existing users under the legal concept of “reverse solicitation.” He said that, from a user perspective, “nothing will change,” apart from restrictions on marketing and user acquisition within the EU.

Sławomir Zawadzki, co-CEO of Kanga Exchange, said existing users are unlikely to see major disruptions. He also suggested that much of the concern around MiCA-related changes is being overstated, adding that competitive positioning may be shaping parts of the public narrative.

Mixed response from users

One Binance EU user told Cointelegraph they were not overly concerned about the MiCA deadline, pointing to Binance’s liquidity and proof-of-reserves reporting. “I’ll honestly continue using Binance until I see evidence of a potential enforcement action,” the person said.

Another user said the impact on Binance EU users would depend on how heavily they rely on the platform. They noted that their primary use of the platform is as a trading gateway and would switch to another exchange if needed, while suggesting the biggest disruption would likely affect active traders and users with large balances on the platform.

Related: EUR trading accounts for 1% of Binance spot volume, CryptoQuant says

According to media reports, Binance’s global client base counts at least 300 million customers, while the app was downloaded more than 4 million times in the EU last year. 

Magazine: How crypto laws changed in 2025 — and how they’ll change in 2026

Uniswap (UNI) and Spark are betting that as the number of stablecoins grow, the market will need the equivalent of a foreign-exchange network to move liquidity between issuers.

Spark, a decentralized-finance (DeFi) protocol focused on stablecoin liquidity, said Thursday it is working with decentralized exchange Uniswap to create what it calls an “FX layer” for stablecoins, a shared liquidity network designed to support a growing number of issuers.

The goal is to make it easier to move between stablecoins while allowing idle capital to earn yield until it’s needed for trading, the companies said.

The move comes as stablecoins move beyond their crypto-native roots and increasingly become part of the cross-border payment network. That’s been helped by lawmakers in the U.S. and elsewhere advancing regulatory frameworks encouraging fintechs, payment firms and banks to enter the market. The stablecoin market could grow from the current $300 billion to $4 trillion by 2030, global bank Citi projected.

Binance has informed European Union users that it will restrict access to certain services after a MiCA-related authorization deadline of July 1. According to user-shared notices attributed to the exchange, Binance will limit onboarding for EU customers and reduce the range of services available to EU-based accounts from that date, while directing users to ensure their assets can be withdrawn in accordance with applicable requirements.

The transition follows Binance’s earlier decision to withdraw a MiCA license application in Greece, underscoring how the EU’s Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) framework is forcing operators to reassess their regional compliance status and service models. Cointelegraph reported on Binance’s MiCA license withdrawal ahead of this development, while the exchange did not respond to Cointelegraph for comment before publication.

Key takeaways

• Binance says it will restrict onboarding and certain services for EU users effective July 1 due to lack of MiCA authorization from an EU member state.
• The exchange’s notices indicate that withdrawals will remain available after the deadline.
• Binance advises users to consider self-custody or transferring assets to other licensed crypto asset service providers (CASPs).
• Questions remain for users about how restricted services will affect products such as staking and other yield-related positions.
• Industry commentary highlights uncertainty around how MiCA enforcement may apply to existing customers versus new users.

MiCA compliance timeline and Binance’s service restrictions

Under MiCA, crypto asset service providers offering services within the European Union must meet authorization and conduct requirements tied to specific activities, such as exchange services and related custody functions. Binance’s latest EU-facing notices frame July 1 as the point after which its ability to provide full services in the bloc depends on whether it holds the necessary MiCA authorization in an EU member state.

User-shared notices state that Binance will halt onboarding new EU users and curtail certain services for EU-based accounts from July 1 onward. The notices also emphasize continued access to withdrawals, stating that “all digital assets are still available for withdrawal,” aligning with obligations typically expected during service transitions and regulatory disengagement.

In practical terms, this approach shifts the operational risk to users: while the exchange indicates assets can be withdrawn, reduced service availability can affect customer workflows—particularly where users rely on the platform for ongoing positions or account-level operations. For compliance teams, the key issue is the operational continuity of customer asset access during regulatory transitions, alongside clear communications on what is changing and what is not.

Binance’s guidance: self-custody and shifting to licensed CASPs

Binance circulated guidance suggesting users may move assets to self-custodial wallets or transfer funds to other crypto asset service providers (CASPs). The exchange described the transition as intended to be “orderly,” with services reduced to position management and withdrawals after the deadline.

The broader market context is that other MiCA-licensed platforms have been competing for EU user attention ahead of the transition date. Some actively marketed services in EU member states, positioning themselves as regulated alternatives. For EU-focused firms, this is a reminder that MiCA compliance is not only a legal permissioning process—it also functions as a competitive differentiator in distribution and customer acquisition.

From a regulatory monitoring perspective, Binance’s communications also raise questions that institutions may need to address: for example, what specific account features remain available post-deadline, how user instructions are processed, and how staking-like arrangements are treated when service categories are restricted under MiCA conditions. Clear delineation of permitted versus restricted functions is crucial for consumer protection and audit readiness.

Staking and active positions: unresolved operational questions

Binance users have sought clarity on how the restriction phase will affect specific services, particularly staking and yield-related exposure. In public replies, a Binance representative reportedly told at least one user that balances remain “available and safe,” but did not provide granular details about the status of staked assets, staking rewards, or any ongoing yield generation mechanisms once restricted services begin.

This gap matters for both users and institutional counterparties. Staking arrangements can involve distinct custody and contractual terms, and the regulatory characterization under MiCA may vary depending on how the service is structured. Even if withdrawals remain open, uncertainty around whether reward distribution continues—or whether assets are automatically unwound or frozen—can create operational risk and complicate internal reporting requirements for regulated entities.

Additionally, uncertainty about account-level outcomes can trigger heightened customer support loads and potential disputes. For compliance stakeholders, such scenarios can elevate the importance of documented policy changes, customer notice archives, and evidence that the firm provided clear, timely and accurate information about service discontinuation and asset access.

Legal interpretation debate: existing users vs. new onboarding

Commentary from executives involved in the EU crypto market points to the legal nuance of how MiCA obligations are applied. Dominik Tomczyk, CEO of SIA AlphaRoute operating as Kanga Exchange EU, told Cointelegraph that platforms without MiCA authorization might still serve existing users under the concept of “reverse solicitation.” He suggested that, from a user perspective, the main change would be restrictions tied to marketing and user acquisition within the EU rather than immediate disruption to existing account access.

Other industry voices expressed less concern about near-term user impact, arguing that some public expectations about MiCA effects may be overstated. They also suggested that competitive positioning may influence how different actors frame the transition.

Still, for institutions, these perspectives do not eliminate uncertainty. Regulatory enforcement patterns can vary by jurisdiction and by supervisory interpretation, especially when service restrictions are linked to authorization status. Organizations monitoring counterparty risk should consider that compliance posture can shift quickly—through licensing outcomes, supervisory scrutiny, or operational restructuring—even where legal theories suggest continued access for existing customers.

What users and counterparties should watch next

As July 1 approaches, the most important items for analysts and compliance monitoring are Binance’s detailed implementation of restricted services for EU accounts, the operational treatment of staking and other yield-related positions, and the practical process for withdrawals and any transfers to third-party CASPs. Institutions should also track how EU supervisors respond to the transition and whether additional guidance clarifies the boundary between serving existing customers and limiting marketing or onboarding under MiCA.

About 60% of users who placed their first World Cup bets on Polymarket had never interacted with blockchain protocols before, suggesting prediction markets are becoming an entry point into crypto.

The finding is based on a 90-day Bitget Wallet study shared with Cointelegraph on Thursday that tracked the onchain activity of 857,000 active Polymarket users.

Bitget Wallet said the findings suggest some users are entering crypto through prediction markets instead of beginning with token trading or DeFi protocols.

Alvin Kan, chief operating officer at Bitget Wallet, told Cointelegraph that earlier crypto onboarding efforts largely focused on making blockchain technology easier to understand through simpler wallets and better user interfaces, but users were still expected to learn how crypto worked before they could participate.

“Prediction markets shifted that dynamic. Users show up because they have a view on something happening in the world,” Kan said.

Daily prediction market taker volume. Source: Dune

Daily taker volume, which measures contracts bought or sold by traders filling existing orders, reached a record $713 million on Saturday, according to Dune data. The milestone came more than a week after the World Cup kicked off on June 11.

Related: CBOE debuts prediction market with S&P 500 contracts

World Cup contracts drive $3.1 billion in volume to Polymarket

A June 11 Bernstein report predicted that the 2026 FIFA World Cup would generate more than $3 billion in incremental sports betting handle and between $5 billion and $10 billion in additional consumer prediction market volume. The World Cup winner contract alone has generated more than $3.1 billion in trading volume on Polymarket, according to platform data.

World Cup winner event contract. Source: Polymarket

Sports contracts ranked among the biggest drivers of prediction market trading over the past 30 days. On Kalshi, they generated $8.5 billion over the past 30 days, making them the platform’s largest category. On Polymarket, sports also ranked first with more than $4.9 billion in trading volume during the same period, according to Defirate data.

Top categories on Kalshi and Polymarket. Source: Defirate

The surge in sports-related trading has also intensified regulatory scrutiny in the US.

On June 17, Kentucky sued five prediction market platforms, including Kalshi and Polymarket, accusing them of operating unlicensed sports betting platforms. At least 17 other states have taken prediction market operators to court, attracting the involvement of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the White House.

The CFTC later sued eight states, arguing they had interfered with the federal regulator’s exclusive authority over federally regulated event contracts.

Magazine: Should users be allowed to bet on war and death in prediction markets?