Crypto Providers See Share Jump to 23%

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.