EU MiCA Licensing: What Article 60 Structurally Changes in Supervisory Power
- Yiannos Ashiotis
- 5 hours ago
- 3 min read
Public discussion surrounding EU MiCA licensing has largely focused on authorisation mechanics: capital requirements, white paper obligations, governance thresholds, and the categorisation of crypto asset service providers (CASPs) under the EU MiCA regulation. These elements define entry, but they do not, however, fully capture the structural shift embedded within MiCA.
MiCA licensing is not designed as a static approval regime.
It establishes an ongoing supervisory architecture - one in which regulatory discretion remains active long after authorisation is granted. Within that architecture, MiCA Article 60 plays a structurally significant role.
Understanding EU MiCA licensing therefore requires analysing not only the conditions for authorisation, but the supervisory powers under MiCA that shape how a licence is sustained over time.
The Architecture of EU MiCA Licensing: Authorisation Is Not the End State
The EU Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA) creates a harmonised framework for licensing and supervising CASPs across the European Union. At a formal level, MiCA authorisation confers passporting rights and operational legitimacy within the internal market.
Structurally, however, authorisation is not the end state of regulation. MiCA integrates licensing and supervision into a single continuum. A firm authorised under MiCA does not simply obtain regulatory clearance and operate independently of oversight. It enters into a supervisory relationship designed to remain active throughout the life of its licence.
Authorisation establishes minimum entry conditions: governance structures, prudential safeguards, operational resilience, and compliance systems. Supervision evaluates whether those conditions continue to be met as the firm’s business model evolves and its risk profile develops.
MiCA compliance is not assessed solely at the point of approval. It is assessed continuously, against regulatory expectations that may shift as supervisory understanding of the sector matures. Article 60 must be read against that structural backdrop.
MiCA Article 60 as a Supervisory Instrument
On its face, MiCA Article 60 addresses the withdrawal of authorisation. It sets out the circumstances under which a competent authority may revoke a CASP’s licence. Structurally, it performs a broader function.
Article 60 reinforces that authorisation under EU MiCA regulation is conditional rather than permanent.
A CASP does not hold an irrevocable licence; it operates under a regulatory mandate that remains subject to supervisory assessment. Its structural significance can be understood through four reinforcing effects:
Conditionality of authorisation: MiCA licensing remains contingent upon the ongoing fulfilment of regulatory requirements.
Supervisory leverage: The existence of a withdrawal power strengthens the credibility of earlier supervisory interventions.
Escalation architecture: Article 60 establishes the outer boundary of supervisory escalation.
Behavioural discipline: Firms are incentivised to maintain substantive compliance, not merely formal adherence at the point of authorisation.
Supervisory powers under MiCA allow competent authorities to assess whether a CASP continues to meet the conditions upon which authorisation was granted. Where governance weaknesses, prudential deficiencies, or operational risks arise, supervisory dialogue takes place within a framework that ultimately permits licence withdrawal. Article 60 crystallises that framework.
Why This Structural Design Matters
The design of EU MiCA licensing carries implications beyond technical compliance. By embedding supervisory powers under MiCA directly into the architecture of authorisation - and reinforcing those powers through Article 60 - the regulation shifts emphasis from entry conditions to sustained regulatory alignment.
Authorisation is not insulation. A MiCA licence places a firm within an ongoing supervisory framework.
Governance becomes central. Internal controls and decision-making structures become critical to regulatory durability. Risk must be understood dynamically.
Firms that treat MiCA compliance as a one-time documentation exercise risk underestimating the supervisory relationship embedded within EU MiCA regulation. Regulatory resilience is measured not by the ability to secure authorisation alone, but by the capacity to sustain compliance, governance robustness, and risk management maturity over time.
Conclusion: EU MiCA Licensing Is an Ongoing Supervisory Status
The significance of EU MiCA licensing does not lie solely in its authorisation criteria. It lies in the supervisory architecture that sustains regulatory authority after approval is granted. MiCA Article 60 embeds conditionality, supports supervisory discretion, and preserves the ability of competent authorities to intervene where regulatory standards are no longer met. Firms may approach MiCA as a gateway regime and those who understand its supervisory design are better positioned to sustain their licence within it.
The Pnyx Hill Perspective
The structural design of EU MiCA licensing requires firms to think beyond application preparation.
Where supervisory powers under MiCA remain active throughout the life of a licence, regulatory readiness becomes an organisational question rather than a procedural one.
Advisory work in this context extends beyond preparing for MiCA authorisation. At Pnyx Hill we include regulatory structuring, governance calibration, and supervisory alignment for firms engaging with EU digital asset markets.
Understanding Article 60 is not an academic exercise. Its implications must be reflected in how firms design their regulatory posture from the outset.