Poland’s President Karol Nawrocki has for the second time vetoed a government bill designed to implement the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA) and establish a domestic legal framework for digital asset services. The vetoed measure, known as Bill 2064, was viewed by authorities as essential for designating a national supervisor and authorising crypto asset service providers under EU rules, but the president described the legislation as overly broad and potentially harmful to freedoms and innovation.

The repeated presidential rejection underscores an ongoing political standoff between Poland’s executive and legislative branches over how best to regulate the fast-growing crypto sector. Nawrocki has criticised both this bill and its predecessor vetoed in December as “wrong laws” that could burden businesses with excessive regulation and drive innovation and companies abroad rather than support growth within Poland. Government supporters argue that the domestic legal gap threatens investor protections and leaves Polish companies at a disadvantage with an upcoming MiCA compliance deadline of July 1, 2026.

Industry participants and local exchanges have already begun to react to the second veto by seeking MiCA licences in other EU jurisdictions, effectively enabling them to continue operations with EU-wide passporting rights available to licensed providers. This strategic pivot reflects the reality that, although MiCA is directly applicable EU law, Poland currently lacks the national legal structure needed to issue its own licences, leaving local firms without a formal pathway to regulation and subjecting them to competitive pressure from foreign entities that have already secured approvals in countries such as Luxembourg or Greece.

Critics of the bill’s repeated veto maintain that without clear national rules including a designated supervisor and enforceable compliance standards the domestic crypto ecosystem faces regulatory uncertainty and potential outflows of capital and talent. Some analysts warn that the absence of legislation could inadvertently increase systemic risks, including anti-money laundering vulnerabilities, as authorities have limited powers to oversee crypto-asset service providers operating in a regulatory vacuum. Conversely, supporters of the veto argue that premature or overly restrictive legislation could stifle innovation and impose unnecessary compliance burdens on emerging businesses.

For investors and market watchers, Poland’s legislative impasse highlights the challenges that arise when national politics intersect with broader EU regulatory frameworks. The second veto extends a period of uncertainty for firms that hoped to establish registered operations domestically under MiCA, and it may reinforce market sentiment that regulatory clarity remains uneven across EU member states. This dynamic could reinforce external licensing strategies and continued reliance on more established crypto jurisdictions within the bloc.