With the entry into force of the “MiCA” regulation, the provision of crypto-asset services within the European Union is strictly reserved for duly authorized providers.
For many market participants, obtaining a CASP (“Crypto-Asset Service Provider”) license entails significant organizational, technical and regulatory investments, sometimes amounting to several hundred thousand euros per year.
In this context, a key question arises: is it possible to offer a coherent crypto experience without holding a license?
MiCA does not provide for any “agent” status for CASPs. An unauthorized actor can therefore neither act on behalf of a provider nor deliver a crypto-asset service under the provider’s responsibility.
Nevertheless, market practice demonstrates that certain configurations remain viable. The partnerships established by Bitpanda with non-licensed actors illustrate this possibility, provided the framework is structured with sufficient rigor.
1. The Business Introducer Model
The business introducer model is the most accessible non-regulated option.
It is based on a simple requirement: limiting one’s role to putting a user in contact with a licensed CASP, without intervening in the service itself.
This implies:
- a purely functional redirection with no incentive;
- no collection or processing of customer information;
- no access to orders or transactional data;
- no promotional or value-driven communication.
Any deviation, even minor, may lead to regulatory requalification.
For actors looking to test a market or structure an initial step toward a crypto strategy, this model remains the simplest and fastest option.
2. The “Grey-Label” Distribution Model
The grey-label model is currently the most balanced solution for offering an integrated crypto experience without necessarily requiring a CASP license.
Under this model, the user accesses the CASP’s interface from within the partner’s environment (typically via webview), while maintaining a strict separation of roles.
Its effectiveness relies in particular on three cumulative requirements.
Transparency: the user must clearly identify the licensed provider. The interface may be co-branded, but the CASP’s identity must appear explicitly at every stage. Nothing should suggest that the service is provided by the facilitating entity.
Technical segregation: sensitive flows – orders, amounts, transactional data – must be handled exclusively by the CASP. The webview must remain a visual entry point only, with no operational capacity.
Neutrality: the partner’s role is limited to providing access. It does not present the service as its own, does not promote it, and does not intervene at any stage in its operation.
When these conditions are met, the grey-label model can deliver smooth user experience, realistic integration, and – importantly – no licensing requirement. It is now the most widely used distribution model in crypto partnerships across Europe.
Integrating CASP services via API represents the most ambitious variation of this model, but also the most exposed. If the partner interacts with an order, transforms an instruction, accesses transactional data or contributes to operational processing – even marginally – it may be requalified as providing a reception-transmission or execution service. These services are reserved for licensed CASPs.
Any consideration of such an integration should, as a strong recommendation, be preceded by consultation with the regulator (in France, the Autorité des marchés financiers) to assess compliance.
3. Becoming a CASP – The Structural Option
Some actors will choose to obtain a CASP licence themselves. This option provides independence, full control of the service, the ability to build a complete business model, and significantly greater flexibility in structuring and delivering the offering.
For regulated financial institutions, certain shortcuts exist, such as the accelerated licensing procedure available to credit institutions. These do not, however, reduce the level of substance expected.
4. Choosing the Appropriate Model
The decision rests fundamentally on three criteria:
- the level of integration sought in the user journey;
- the degree of responsibility the actor is prepared to assume;
- the strategic orientation selected, whether partnership-based, a progressive ramp-up, or full internalization of the service.
Actors able to structure a compliant model from the outset gain a clear advantage: offering a credible crypto experience without exposing the organization to disproportionate regulatory risks.
To explore how to structure a crypto model in compliance with MiCA, you may contact Daniel Arroche using the form at the bottom of this page.
The information in this article is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or investment guidance; it must be assessed in light of each actor’s specific circumstances and cannot create any liability for d&a partners or its attorneys, who recommend seeking professional advice before making any decisions related to the implementation of a crypto offering or the interpretation of the MiCA regulation.