The official ESMA MiCA register rose to 309 crypto-asset service providers after a July 24 update added 15 entries across Europe, including BNY SA/NV in Belgium, four German institutions and three Danish companies.

The latest update also included two providers from Bulgaria and two from Latvia, while Cyprus, Liechtenstein and the Netherlands each added one. It was the third expansion of the register since July 1, when the maximum transitional period under the EU’s Markets in Crypto-Assets regulation ended. A previous update had increased the total to 294 providers.

The composition of the new entries is more significant than the size of the increase. A global custodian, regional banks, payment companies and crypto-native firms now appear within the same MiCA framework, although their permissions, business models and target customers may differ substantially. That breadth is central to MiCA’s purpose: replacing a patchwork of national crypto regimes with a common EU rulebook while still tying each provider’s status to specific services and legal entities.

The 15 New MiCA Register Entries

The latest additions to the official ESMA MiCA register are:

Belgium: BNY SA/NV.

Bulgaria: Altcoins BG EOOD and Digital Assist OOD.

Cyprus: SG Digital Assets Limited.

Germany: JT Technologies GmbH, Spar- und Kreditbank Rheinstetten eG, VR-Bank Augsburg-Ostallgäu eG and Raiffeisenbank Falkenstein-Wörth.

Denmark: Coinify ApS, Januar ApS and SafeLynx Technologies ApS.

Liechtenstein: Damoon Technology (Europe) AG.

Latvia: Bleap SIA and Nodu Digital, SIA.

Netherlands: BitPay B.V.

Germany accounted for the largest national group in the July 24 batch. However, the list should not be read as 15 firms entering the same business line. Some providers may focus on consumers, while others may offer custody, transfers, payments or order execution to professional clients. MiCA places those activities within one regulatory system, but it does not treat every registered entity as a full-service crypto exchange.

BNY’s Entry Highlights Institutional Infrastructure

BNY SA/NV is the most recognizable name in the update and also one of the easiest entries to misinterpret. The Belgian entity is a regulated bank and part of BNY’s European banking structure. Its likely role in Europe is institutional infrastructure, not a retail trading platform comparable to a conventional crypto exchange.

The company’s existing business includes custody, asset servicing and collateral management for institutional clients. That background makes digital-asset custody a logical fit, as European banks, fund managers and other financial institutions need regulated counterparties that can safeguard crypto assets and connect them with established settlement, accounting and reporting systems.

BNY’s official digital custody materials describe a platform designed to place traditional and digital assets in one operating environment for safekeeping, settlement, accounting and servicing. The company has also been developing infrastructure for tokenized finance. BNY says it has built systems that support tokenized fund units, on-chain and off-chain record reconciliation, and stablecoin-based subscriptions and redemptions.

Those capabilities help explain why the MiCA entry is notable. For BNY, the larger opportunity may be behind the customer interface, providing custody and operational infrastructure to institutions that offer digital assets or tokenized products. In institutional markets, custody is not only a storage function; it is also linked to audit trails, segregation of assets, reporting duties and operational controls that many regulated clients require before using a new asset class.

The practical effect depends on the permissions recorded for the specific legal entity. A scope limited to custody and administration would cover safekeeping, while permissions for transfers or execution would allow a broader role in client transactions and settlement. For determining what BNY SA/NV may offer in Europe, the ESMA record is more important than BNY’s broader global product range.

Banks Use a Different MiCA Route

It would be inaccurate to describe every company in the register as holding an “ESMA licence.” National competent authorities approve or receive notifications from providers and then send that information to ESMA, which maintains the central register. ESMA says the published records reflect information submitted by the relevant authorising or notified authority.

Standalone crypto companies generally apply for authorization under Article 63 of the MiCA regulation. Credit institutions such as banks can use the Article 60 notification process for the crypto services they intend to provide.

Under that route, a bank must notify its home authority before launching the relevant services and provide information on governance, controls, custody arrangements and operating procedures. The notification process avoids duplicating parts of the prudential review already applied to regulated financial institutions, but it does not give a bank unrestricted permission to conduct every crypto activity. Each service must still fall within the scope accepted by the relevant authority.

This distinction matters because the ESMA register combines different regulatory pathways in one public database. A bank notification and a crypto-company authorization can both appear in the register, but the legal basis, supervisory history and permitted activities may not be the same.

July 1 Ended the Broad Transitional Period

MiCA allowed some providers that were operating legally before December 30, 2024 to continue temporarily under older national regimes. However, the maximum grandfathering period ended on July 1, 2026, and several member states set shorter deadlines.

A pending application did not extend those rights. Firms without the required authorization or notification could no longer trade across the EU using their old national status after the relevant deadline.

A company stating that it applied before the deadline, or that it remains in discussions with its regulator, has not by itself confirmed that it may continue operating. MiCA allowed grandfathered providers to continue only until July 1, 2026 or until their application was approved or refused, whichever came first. Customers should therefore check a provider’s current status in the live register rather than assume that an application protects the business indefinitely.

The Register Does Not Represent 309 Exchanges

MiCA recognizes several separate services, including custody, transfers, execution of client orders, exchanging crypto for funds and operating a trading platform. Inclusion in the register does not mean a company can provide all of those services.

The legal entity also matters. The company named in a customer agreement should match the entity and official website recorded by ESMA. A group brand may appear familiar, but MiCA status applies to the specific legal entity and the services listed for that entity.

That is especially relevant for international groups that operate through several subsidiaries. A familiar parent brand does not automatically mean that every European affiliate has the same MiCA status or can offer the same crypto services in every market.

Smaller Markets Gain Importance Under MiCA

The Bulgarian, Latvian, Cypriot and Liechtenstein entries show how smaller jurisdictions can become more important under MiCA. Once the relevant process is complete, a provider can use the framework to offer authorized services across other European Economic Area markets through passporting, without seeking a separate full licence in every country.

Companies may choose a home state based on existing operations, staffing, language and familiarity with the local supervisor. That creates opportunities for smaller financial centres to attract crypto businesses.

It also makes consistent supervision important. A provider approved or notified in one country may later serve customers across much of Europe, so weaknesses in home-state supervision would not remain only a local issue. ESMA’s role includes reducing those differences by coordinating national authorities and publishing common technical and supervisory standards.

What Customers Should Check

A MiCA claim should be verified against the official register rather than accepted solely from a company announcement or licence logo.

Legal entity: Match the registered company with the customer agreement.

Service scope: Confirm that the permission covers the product being offered.

Home supervisor: Identify the authority responsible for the provider.

Effective status: Check authorization, notification and withdrawal dates.

Official website: Compare the domain with ESMA’s recorded information.

MiCA status means that a provider has entered a supervised framework with rules covering governance, capital, custody and customer protection. It does not prevent cyberattacks, poor management or investment losses.

Provider Mix Matters More Than the Total

The increase to 309 shows that national regulators are still processing applications after the transitional period ended. The July 24 batch also provides a clearer view of the market developing under MiCA.

Crypto-native firms remain part of the framework, while BNY and the German banks show that established finance is building its own position inside it. Payment companies add another layer, focused on moving assets rather than operating large trading venues.

BNY’s appearance is particularly relevant because institutional adoption depends on more than investor demand. Large allocators also need regulated recordkeeping and settlement connections before they can use digital assets at scale.

The key question remains what each provider is actually permitted to launch. A company name confirms its presence in the register; the service scope determines what that presence means. Future register updates will therefore be important not only for the headline count, but also for changes in service permissions, withdrawals and the balance between banks, payment firms and crypto-native providers.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial, investment or legal advice. MiCA status does not guarantee the safety, solvency or performance of a crypto-asset service provider.

Methodology: Provider names, jurisdictions and the total count are based on ESMA’s July 24 MiCA register update. Regulatory analysis uses the official MiCA text and ESMA’s transitional guidance. BNY’s institutional strategy is assessed through its official custody and tokenization materials, while the exact services available in Europe remain subject to the scope recorded for BNY SA/NV.