Expansion of ESMA’s Crypto-Asset Service Providers Register
The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) has recently expanded its interim register of crypto-asset service providers (CASPs), increasing the total to 309 authorized entities after incorporating 15 new firms. This expansion is reflected in the most recent register file released on July 24, following its compilation on July 23.
Notable Additions
Among the new additions is BNY SA/NV, a Belgian subsidiary of the U.S.-based financial giant BNY, which received its authorization for offering crypto-asset custody and transfer services from the National Bank of Belgium on July 20.
Traditional banks are increasingly entering the regulated digital asset landscape in Europe, and BNY, with a staggering $62.6 trillion in assets held under custody or administration as of June 30, positions itself as a significant player in this space. BNY SA/NV is recognized as a pivotal custody bank within Europe.
New Providers from Germany and Beyond
In addition to BNY, three cooperative banks from Germany—Raiffeisenbank Falkenstein-Wörth, Spar- und Kreditbank Rheinstetten, and VR-Bank Augsburg-Ostallgäu—have also been included in the latest update. This update brings Germany’s total to four new service providers, as it also includes the firm JT Technologies.
Other countries represented in this wave of additions are Denmark and the Netherlands, with firms like BitPay B.V. and Coinify ApS enhancing the list of digital payment companies now authorized to operate under MiCA regulations.
Denmark’s contingent also features two other firms: SafeLynx Technologies and Januar, both focusing on payment solutions for digital asset service providers. Following the jurisdictions, Bulgaria and Latvia contributed to the enhancement of the register with their own local entries. Bulgaria added Altcoins BG and Digital Assist, while Latvia’s contributions comprised Bleap and Nodu Digital. Other new providers include Damoon Technology Europe from Liechtenstein and SG Digital Assets from Cyprus.
Understanding the Register
It is important to note that while the CSV file published by ESMA includes 312 entries, due to some firms being listed multiple times, the NorthPoint comparison identifies a total of 309 unique entity-regulator pairs—a concept crucial for understanding discrepancies in reported numbers across different platforms.
This update is significant as it follows the conclusion of the European Union’s MiCA transition period on July 1, which mandated that companies operating under previous national registrations must now hold a CASP authorization to provide related services. ESMA indicates that this register will be updated weekly, sourcing its data from national regulators.
Regulatory Framework and Challenges
The MiCA regulatory framework permits an authorization from one EU member state to facilitate cross-border services within the Union upon completing the necessary passporting process. However, this approval only applies to the service categories explicitly listed for each provider. For instance, BNY’s authorization encompasses custody, administrative services for crypto-assets, and transfer services, explicitly excluding any trading or exchange operations.
As previously reported, the last register update saw the addition of 14 providers, bringing the total to 294 at that time, which included well-known entities like Ripple Payments Europe and Bison Bank, indicating a growing trend among financial institutions to comply with regulatory changes and enhance market access.
This increasing number of CASP licenses highlights that national authorities are still processing applications. Nevertheless, challenges remain regarding the ability of some newly authorized firms to sustain the costs of compliance and operational requirements in the long run.
Giovanni Cunti, the chief executive of Gate Europe, remarked on concerns that some licensed firms may struggle to meet these demands, further influencing the landscape of the regulated market.
Conclusion
The ESMA register serves as an official record of authorization rather than an assessment of the financial viability or service quality of the listed entities. Furthermore, it is essential for stakeholders to recognize that there may be a delay in the update of this information as it is first collected and distributed by national authorities to ESMA.
