Where to Get a CASP Licence: Jurisdictions Compared (2026)

Under MiCA the rulebook is harmonised, so the licence itself is the same wherever you get it. What differs is how fast your regulator moves, what substance they expect on the ground, and how much local talent you can actually hire. Those three things decide your timeline far more than fee schedules do.

Here is how the realistic options compare in 2026.

The passport is the whole point

A CASP licence from any member state passports across all 27. You authorise once and notify onward. That means jurisdiction choice is an operational decision, not a regulatory-arbitrage one — you cannot buy a lighter rulebook by moving, only a different queue.

Anyone selling you a "lighter" EU jurisdiction is selling you a slower one with a friendlier brochure.

What actually varies

Regulator throughput

The single biggest variable. Some national authorities built dedicated crypto teams ahead of MiCA and are clearing files in six months. Others are staffing up against a backlog and are quoting twelve or more. Ask directly how many CASP authorisations they have granted, not how many they have received.

Substance expectations

Every regulator requires genuine local presence, but interpretations differ. Some accept a resident compliance officer plus one resident director. Others want the full executive team on the ground, with evidence of local decision-making — board minutes, office leases, employment contracts. Getting this wrong is the most common cause of a stalled file.

Language and process

Several regulators accept applications in English. Others require certified translation of every document, which adds cost and weeks. Check before you draft.

Talent depth

You need a compliance officer, an MLRO and a risk lead who are resident and hireable. In smaller jurisdictions the pool of people who have done this before is thin, and salaries reflect it. A cheaper filing fee against a 40% salary premium is a bad trade.

What "substance" concretely means

Every regulator says it expects substance. Few define it in the application pack, and the gap between what founders assume and what supervisors mean is where files stall.

In practice substance is assessed on four things:

• Mind and management located locally. Directors and senior managers who actually run the business from the member state, not signatories who visit for board meetings. Some regulators ask for evidence of residence and time spent.
• Named functions filled by real people. A compliance officer and MLRO who are employed, contactable, appropriately qualified, and not simultaneously holding the same role at several unrelated firms.
• Local operations. Premises, local employment, and decision-making that demonstrably happens where the licence is held.
• Decisions evidenced on the ground. Board minutes, risk committee records and approval trails showing that governance is exercised locally rather than ratified after the fact.

Firms that treat a member state as a mailbox and run operations elsewhere are the reason substance testing tightened. Budget for genuine local presence or pick a jurisdiction where your team already is.

Timing, transition and the queue

Two timing factors matter more than fee differences. The first is transitional arrangements: firms already operating under a pre-existing national regime may have a grandfathering window, and those windows vary by member state and are finite. Whether you fall inside one materially changes your sequencing.

The second is the queue. Every regulator absorbed a wave of applications in the same period, and throughput varies by an order of magnitude. A well-resourced authority processing files in order will beat a nominally faster one with a backlog. Ask directly how many CASP authorisations the authority has granted and how many are pending — the ratio tells you more than any published service standard.

The offshore question: SVG, and why it is not a CASP licence

Searches for CASP licences in St Vincent and the Grenadines, and similar offshore options, come up constantly. It is worth being blunt about this.

An offshore registration is not a CASP licence and does not passport into the EU. If you serve EU clients without EU authorisation, you are operating unlawfully under MiCA regardless of where you are incorporated. Reverse solicitation is a narrow exemption and regulators have said plainly that they will read it narrowly — a website in English with a EUR pricing page is not reverse solicitation.

Offshore structures still have legitimate uses for non-EU business. They are not a route into Europe, and treating them as one has become a reliable way to lose banking relationships.

What about New Zealand, the UK and other non-EU regimes?

These are separate regimes with their own registration requirements. They can be sensible if your users are there. They confer nothing under MiCA. If your target market is the EU, you need an EU authorisation, and the only question is which member state issues it.

Why applications get rejected or stall

Rejections are rare; indefinite stalls are common, and the causes repeat.

• Filing early to "start the clock." An incomplete file does not start anything useful. The clock pauses on every information request, and a thin application generates many.
• A compliance stack that is described rather than running. Answering that you will procure screening and monitoring after authorisation is a weak answer. Have it operating, with policies and sample outputs.
• Unclear ownership. Beneficial ownership that is hard to trace, or shareholders who cannot pass fit-and-proper assessment, will stop a file regardless of the rest of its quality.
• Capital that is not eligible. The composition of own funds is tested, not just the total. Instruments that do not qualify will be challenged.
• DORA discovered late. ICT risk obligations landing mid-authorisation force a retrofit under time pressure.

The CASP register

ESMA maintains a public register of authorised CASPs, and national regulators publish their own lists. Two practical uses:

• Diligence on counterparties. Before integrating a custodian or venue, check they are actually on it. Claims of being "MiCA compliant" are not the same as being authorised.
• Benchmarking. The register shows which regulators are actually granting licences and at what pace — better evidence than any consultant's pitch.

A practical selection method

1. Shortlist three member states where you can genuinely hire and hold board meetings
2. Ask each regulator how many CASP authorisations they have granted and the median time from submission
3. Confirm working language and translation requirements
4. Price the full first-year cost, not the fee — our CASP licence cost breakdown sets out the buckets
5. Confirm your compliance stack is contracted before filing, not after

Get the stack right before you file

Whichever jurisdiction you pick, the systems questions are identical because the rulebook is harmonised. You will be asked how you verify identity, screen against sanctions, monitor transactions and handle Travel Rule messaging.

Useful starting points: crypto KYC providers, sanctions screening software, transaction monitoring software, and KYB compliance requirements if you onboard businesses.

And remember DORA lands on the same firms — see how MiCA and DORA overlap so the ICT questions do not catch you mid-application.

The short version

Pick on throughput and talent. Ignore fee differences under EUR 20,000, because a two-month delay costs more than that in burn. And if someone offers you an EU-serving licence from outside the EU, walk away — see our CASP and MiCA overview for what the regime actually requires.

Frequently asked questions

Does it matter which EU member state I get my CASP licence in?

The rulebook is harmonised and the passport is EU-wide, so the licence confers the same rights everywhere. What varies is regulator throughput, substance expectations, process language and local talent depth — all of which affect your timeline and cost rather than your permissions.

Can I passport a CASP licence across the EU?

Yes. That is the central benefit of authorising under MiCA: one authorisation, notified into other member states, rather than a separate licence per country. It is also why non-EU alternatives are not equivalent regardless of how quickly they can be obtained.

Is an SVG or other offshore registration a substitute?

No. An offshore registration does not grant EU market access and cannot be passported. It may be appropriate for a business genuinely operating outside the EU, but it is not a cheaper route to European customers — serving EU users without authorisation is the specific thing MiCA prohibits.

How much local presence do I actually need?

Enough that the business is genuinely run from the jurisdiction: locally resident senior management, employed compliance and MLRO functions, real premises, and governance decisions evidenced locally. Nominee arrangements are the pattern supervisors are specifically testing for.

Should I file as early as possible?

No. File when complete. An early, thin application generates information requests that pause the clock, and firms that file prepared routinely finish sooner than those that filed months earlier. See CASP licence cost for how remediation rounds affect the budget.