Despite MiCA's Framework, Cryptocurrency Users in Hungary Encounter Ongoing Trading Confusion

Overview of Cryptocurrency Trading in Hungary

In August, Hungary lifted additional restrictions on cryptocurrency trading, offering renewed hope to customers eager to trade freely once again. However, clarity still varies significantly depending on the cryptocurrency platform being used. For example, Bitvavo informed its Hungarian users that trading and euro deposits would resume, with new registrations set to reopen starting September 7. In stark contrast, as of November 13, Revolut's help page indicated that its crypto services were still suspended, referencing a shutdown linked to a December 2025 deadline.

Disparities in Crypto Service Availability

Disparities in crypto service availability across regions are not unusual, particularly when considering that some service providers’ help pages may become outdated long after the cessation of previous limitations. To access current capabilities, users typically must conduct account tests or transaction verifications, as the information on support pages may not reflect the latest status.

EU Regulatory Framework and Hungary's Amendments

The European Union has spent considerable time developing a cohesive regulatory framework to allow authorized cryptocurrency providers to function without needing separate licenses for each member state. While the EU’s Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA) aims to create seamless cross-border operations, it permits certain distinctions among nations. Authorized companies receive a regulatory ‘passport’, allowing them to offer services in different EU countries on notifying their home regulator of their intent.

Despite the EU framework, Hungary complicated matters in 2025 by introducing amendments requiring added validation for crypto conversions, complete with criminal penalties for non-compliance. This action compelled companies already operating under MiCA to navigate additional obligations in Hungary. As a result, Revolut directed its users to liquidate their crypto by December 18, 2025, promising to automatically sell any remaining assets and shut down accounts thereafter.

European Commission's Response

Responding to these developments, the European Commission initiated an infringement procedure on January 30, asserting that Hungary's additional requirements lacked justification under MiCA. The Commission recognized Hungary's valid intentions regarding anti-money laundering but emphasized that any newly introduced measures must align with EU law. Subsequently, Hungary repealed the contested mandate before legal proceedings could establish a final verdict, with Act XXXVIII of 2026 officially nullifying the requirement on August 7. The explanatory memorandum for the repeal acknowledged its contradiction with EU regulations, with MiCA’s transition period already having concluded by July 1, 2026.

Resumption of Services and Funding Methods

This repeal offered a new opportunity for firms like Bitvavo to signal a resumption of services. However, an update to its general eligibility webpage on November 4 still categorized Hungary as unsupported, while specific notifications indicated otherwise.

Once customers manage to establish accounts, they often discover that funding methods vary widely from one country to another. For instance, Coinbase’s European payment guide offers diverse options—ranging from Easy Bank Transfers in nations like the Netherlands and Germany to different payment methods like card deposits and BLIK transfers specified uniquely for various countries.

Transparency and Customer Awareness

These discrepancies arise not just from administrative choices made by exchanges but also from how financial transactions are facilitated—with some exchanges choosing to manage payments internally while others collaborate with authorized partners.

Under Article 70(4) of MiCA, exchanges must disclose who handles payment services, ensuring transparency regarding which entity is responsible. The regulation establishes that platforms must uphold non-discriminatory access rules, meaning all users should encounter fair and transparent fees and conditions.

Additionally, customers should be wary of potential hidden complexities when utilizing services across platforms. A significant issue arises when different arms of the same exchange are responsible for varying aspects of account management. For example, from October 14, Kraken’s services fall under an Irish MiCA-licensed entity, while other functions may be managed by different companies across the European Economic Area, leading to potential confusion regarding which entity holds customer assets and the protections associated with them.

Conclusion

While substantial strides have been made towards a unified approach across the EU, the experiences of Hungarian customers highlight an ongoing challenge: navigating a fragmented landscape where the legislative environment has shifted, but individual platforms may lag in adapting to these changes. The complexity is exacerbated when trying to ascertain how best to fund accounts or which company will ultimately manage customer assets post-trading transactions.