MiCA Article 60 vs. Full CASP Authorization: When the Fast Track Isn't Enough

MiCA’s Article 60 provides authorized financial institutions with a compelling fast track into EU crypto markets—40 days versus six months, no additional capital, leveraging existing regulatory credentials. But the fast track has hard boundaries that many firms discover too late.

When your planned crypto services exceed equivalence constraints, when you're establishing standalone crypto operations rather than extending existing financial services, or when your business model simply doesn't fit the MiCA Article 60's limitations, full CASP authorization under Article 59 becomes the only viable path.

Understanding exactly when Article 60 stops working—before you invest months in preparation—separates successful market entry from expensive false starts.

This article examines when Article 60 proves insufficient, how to assess whether your business model fits the fast track or requires full authorization, what strategic considerations should drive the decision, and realistic pathways for firms lacking EU authorization.

1 The Fundamental Constraint: MicA Article 60 Equivalence

Article 60's core limitation is equivalence—you can only provide crypto services equivalent to financial services you're already authorized for. This creates clear boundaries where Article 60 ends and full CASP authorization begins.

1.1 When MiFID Investment Firms Hit the Wall

MiFID investment firms face the most complex equivalence analysis because eligibility depends entirely on specific authorization scope.

1.1.1 Scenario 1: The Execution-Only Broker's Problem

You operate a retail brokerage authorized for:

• Execution of orders ✅

• Reception and transmission of orders ✅

You want comprehensive crypto services including custody, trading, and advisory.

MiCA Article 60 permits: Crypto trade execution and order reception/transmission only

Requires full CASP authorization: Custody (no safekeeping authorization), advisory services (no investment advice authorization), portfolio management (no management authorization)

The commercial reality: Article 60 eligibility is so limited it's commercially insufficient. Without custody, clients must withdraw crypto to self-hosted wallets after every trade—poor user experience. You need full CASP authorization to offer viable services.

Your options:

·       Accept limited Article 60 scope and target active traders who self-custody

·       Partner with authorized custodian for integrated offering

·       Pursue full CASP authorization with custody capabilities

·       Expand MiFID authorization to include safekeeping (3-4 months), then use Article 60

Most firms choose: Option 3 (full CASP) or Option 2 (partnership).

1.1.2 Scenario 2: The Portfolio Manager's Expansion Dilemma

You're authorized for:

• Portfolio management ✅

• Investment advice ✅

You want to operate a crypto trading platform serving third-party clients.

MiCA Article 60 permits: Crypto portfolio management and advice for existing clients

Requires full CASP authorization: Operating a trading platform (equivalent to MTF/OTF operation under MiFID, which you're not authorized for)

Decision point: If your strategy is extending discretionary management to include crypto assets, Article 60 works perfectly. If your strategy is becoming a crypto exchange operator, you need either:

• Full CASP authorization for trading platform operation

• Expand MiFID authorization to include MTF/OTF operation (6-9 months), then use Article 60

• Partner with existing trading venues rather than operating your own

Most firms choose: Focus on core competency (portfolio management via Article 60), partner with exchanges for execution infrastructure.

1.2 When EMIs and CSDs Need More

Electronic money institutions and central securities depositories face narrow Article 60 scopes that work only for specific business models.

EMI limitation: Article 60 permits custody and transfer services exclusively for e-money tokens you issue.

If you want to:

• Provide custody for bitcoin, Ethereum, or other crypto-assets → Full CASP required

• Operate an exchange for multiple tokens → Full CASP required

• Offer crypto advisory services → Full CASP required

CSD limitation: Article 60 permits custody only.

If you want to:

• Operate a crypto trading platform → Full CASP required

• Provide exchange services → Full CASP required

• Any service beyond custody → Full CASP required

The strategic question: Is your business model genuinely focused (custody for CSDs, own-token services for EMIs) or are you building comprehensive crypto businesses that Article 60 simply can't accommodate?

1.3 Standalone Crypto Entities: When Article 60 Doesn't Apply

Article 60 applies only to existing authorized entities expanding into crypto services. It explicitly does not apply to:

• New entities established specifically for crypto services (even if owned by authorized financial groups)

• Existing companies without relevant financial services authorizations

• Third-country entities without EU authorization

1.4 The Group Structure Decision

Financial groups face a strategic choice when entering crypto markets:

1.4.1 Option A: Use Existing Entity + Article 60

Your bank/investment firm/asset manager notifies under Article 60 and provides crypto services through the existing legal entity.

Advantages:

• ✅ 40-day launch timeline

• ✅ No additional capital allocation

• ✅ Leverages existing infrastructure, staff, systems

• ✅ Unified client relationships (traditional and crypto services from same entity)

Disadvantages:

• ❌ Crypto risks (operational, reputational, regulatory) sit within existing regulated entity

• ❌ No legal separation between traditional and crypto business lines

• ❌ Harder to establish distinct crypto brand

• ❌ Complex exit if crypto strategy fails (can't simply wind down a service line like closing a subsidiary)

1.4.2 Option B: Establish Separate CASP Subsidiary

Create new legal entity, obtain full CASP authorization, operate crypto services separately.

Advantages:

• ✅ Legal and operational risk separation (crypto failures don't impact parent)

• ✅ Dedicated management focused exclusively on crypto

• ✅ Distinct brand positioning possible

• ✅ Cleaner exit if strategy fails (wind down subsidiary)

• ✅ Different capital structure, investor participation, potential future spinoff possible

Disadvantages:

• ❌ 4-6 month CASP authorization timeline (vs. 40 days)

• ❌ €50,000-€150,000 minimum capital allocation

• ❌ Build compliance infrastructure from scratch

• ❌ Separate legal entity means clients have relationships with different entities

1.5 Decision Framework for Group Structure

Factor	Article 60 (Existing Entity)	Full CASP (Separate Entity)
Speed to market	✅ 40 days	❌ 4-6 months
Capital efficiency	✅ Zero additional capital	❌ €50K-€150K minimum
Risk separation	❌ Integrated risks	✅ Legal separation
Strategic flexibility	❌ Hard to exit/spin off	✅ Clean exit possible
Client experience	✅ Unified relationship	❌ Separate entities
Regulatory complexity	✅ Extension of existing	❌ New authorization

When to choose separate CASP:

• You want legal separation between traditional and crypto businesses

• You're uncertain about long-term crypto commitment and want exit optionality

• You want distinct crypto brand positioning

• You're willing to accept longer timeline for structural benefits

When to choose MiCA Article 60:

• Speed to market creates critical competitive advantage

• You want unified client experience across traditional and crypto services

• You're confident in risk management and don't need legal separation

• Capital efficiency matters significantly

2 Service Scope Beyond Equivalence: Innovation and Cross-Sectoral Services

Even entities with broad Article 60 eligibility sometimes plan services exceeding equivalence limitations.

2.1 The Innovation Problem

Article 60 maps existing financial services to crypto equivalents—but crypto markets evolve faster than regulatory frameworks. New service models emerge that don't fit equivalence mappings.

Example: Crypto Lending and Yield Services

You're a bank with universal Article 60 scope. You want to offer:

• Crypto lending (clients borrow against crypto collateral)

• Crypto staking services (facilitating proof-of-stake rewards)

• DeFi yield aggregation (accessing decentralized protocols on clients' behalf)

The equivalence question: Do these fit Article 60 scope as equivalent to existing banking services?

Crypto lending might map to traditional secured lending—banks lend against securities collateral routinely. Article 60 arguably permits this.

Staking services are harder—what's the traditional equivalent? Perhaps custody with corporate actions processing? Requires regulatory interpretation.

DeFi yield aggregation doesn't map cleanly to any traditional service. Competent authorities may conclude this exceeds Article 60 equivalence and requires specific CASP authorization.

The strategic reality: When innovating beyond clear equivalences, full CASP authorization provides certainty. Article 60 creates regulatory interpretation risk surfacing only after launch.

2.2 Cross-Sectoral Service Provision

An entity authorized under one framework sometimes wants crypto services requiring authorization under different frameworks.

Example: UCITS management company authorized for portfolio management wants to operate a crypto trading platform.

Article 60 eligibility: Crypto portfolio management ✅

Trading platform operation: Equivalent to MTF/OTF operation, requiring market operator authorization under MiFID—not UCITS authorization ❌

Options:

• Obtain market operator authorization, then use Article 60 for crypto trading platform (lengthy, complex)

• Obtain full CASP authorization for trading platform operation (4-6 months, focused on crypto)

• Partner with existing trading venues (fastest, outsources the service)

• For most asset managers, option 3 makes strategic sense—focus on core competency (portfolio management), partner with exchanges for execution.

3 Cost-Benefit Analysis: Time, Capital, and Competitive Positioning

3.1 Time Value of Market Position

In crypto markets where first-mover advantages can be substantial, Article 60's speed creates tangible economic value:

MiCA Article 60 timeline: 40 working days ≈ 8 weeks

Full CASP timeline: 4-6 months = 16-24 weeks

Time advantage: 8-16 weeks earlier market entry

What's this worth? If competing for institutional clients where early relationships become sticky, or retail markets where brand recognition builds cumulatively, 3-4 months head start has measurable value.

When time advantage matters most:

• Competitive markets where multiple firms are racing to launch

• Client segments where early entrants capture disproportionate share

• Regulatory windows where being first establishes precedent

When time advantage matters less:

• Niche markets with limited competition

• Institutional clients requiring 6+ months to onboard regardless

• Markets where being best matters more than being first

3.2 Capital Allocation Efficiency

MiCA Article 60: Zero additional regulatory capital (existing capital base applies)

Full CASP: €50,000-€150,000 minimum capital depending on services

For banks and large investment firms, €150,000 represents immaterial capital. For smaller firms, it's more significant.

But consider opportunity cost: Even with €150,000 available, is deploying it as regulatory capital the best use? Could that capital generate better returns in technology, marketing, or team building?

For most Article 60-eligible entities, capital isn't the constraint—speed is.

4 Market Entry Pathways for Firms Lacking EU Authorization

For crypto-native startups, international financial groups, or EU firms lacking relevant authorization, Article 60 isn't directly available. The question becomes how to achieve EU market access efficiently.

4.1 Realistic Market Entry Options

Pathway	Timeline	Capital	Control	Best For
Partner with EU Firm	3-6 months	€50K-€200K	Shared	Fast test, limited capital
Acquire MiFID Firm	7-12 months	€500K-€5M+	Full	Control + infrastructure
Build MiFID Firm	9-13 months	€1M-€2.5M+	Full	Clean slate, long-term presence
Build CASP	5-7 months	€500K-€1.5M	Full	Crypto-only (most efficient)

Partner Pathway: Fast market entry through white-label arrangements or revenue share with EU MiFID firms using Article 60. Gets you to market in 3-6 months without authorization burden.

Acquire Pathway: Purchase existing EU MiFID firm (7-12 months), integrate into your group, then use Article 60 for 40-day crypto launch. Makes sense when you want full control and can justify acquisition capital.

Build MiFID Pathway: Establish new MiFID firm (9-13 months total), then use Article 60. Only rational when you need broader EU financial services presence beyond just crypto.

Build CASP Pathway: Establish standalone crypto entity with CASP authorization (5-7 months).

This is the most efficient route for crypto-focused businesses. Faster than MiFID, lower capital, authorization designed specifically for crypto services.

What NOT to Do

❌ Don't pursue EU EMI authorization to access Article 60 for stablecoins

• Timeline: 18-24 months minimum (completely unrealistic)

• Regulatory capital: €350K minimum required

• Total investment: €1M-€3M (includes authorization costs, technology infrastructure, staff, office, operational runway until license granted)

• Article 60 scope: Only your own issued e-money tokens

• Reality: Partner with existing EMI (3-6 months, €50K-€200K integration costs)

❌ Don't pursue EU banking authorization to access Article 60

• Timeline: 24-36+ months

• Regulatory capital: €5M minimum required

• Total investment: €5M-€10M+ (includes authorization costs €500K-€1M, core banking systems, compliance infrastructure, staff, office, 12-18 months operational runway)

• Reality: Unless you need full banking capabilities for entirely separate strategic reasons, this makes zero sense for crypto market access alone

❌ Don't try to acquire existing CASP to save time

• CASPs are brand new under MiCA (2024-2025 vintage)

• Very few quality acquisition targets exist yet

• Those that exist command premium valuations without operational track records

• Reality: Building new CASP from scratch (5-7 months, €500K-€1.5M total investment) is faster and more cost-efficient than finding and acquiring existing CASP

5 Making the Decision: A Systematic Framework

5.1 Step 1: Assess Eligibility

Are you an EU-authorized credit institution, MiFID firm, UCITS/AIFM, CSD, EMI, or market operator?

If NO → Article 60 isn't directly available. Evaluate market entry pathways (partner, acquire, build MiFID, or build CASP).

If YES → Proceed to Step 2

5.2 Step 2: Evaluate Service Equivalence

Map each planned crypto service to your existing authorization:

For each service, identify the equivalent traditional service and verify you're authorized for it.

If ALL planned crypto services have equivalence → Article 60 likely viable, proceed to Step 3

If ANY planned service lacks equivalence → Full CASP required for non-equivalent services

5.3 Step 3: Assess Strategic Factors

Even if Article 60 is technically available, consider:

Risk separation: Do you need legal separation between traditional and crypto businesses?

Brand positioning: Do you want distinct crypto brand versus traditional institution brand?

Exit optionality: How certain are you about long-term crypto commitment?

Speed premium: How much economic value does 3-4 months earlier launch create?

If strategic factors favor separation → Consider full CASP in separate entity

If strategic factors favor integration → Use Article 60

5.4 Step 4: Consider Hybrid Approaches

You're not limited to binary choices:

Phased approach:

• Phase 1: Launch initial services via Article 60 (fast market entry)

• Phase 2: Establish separate CASP for expanded services as business scales

Partnership approach:

• Phase 1: Launch core services via Article 60 in existing entity

• Phase 2: Partner with specialized CASPs for non-equivalent services

5.5 Realistic Recommendations by Business Model

Crypto exchange/platform wanting EU market access: → Build standalone CASP (5-7 months). Most cost-efficient authorization for crypto-focused business.

International asset manager wanting crypto portfolio management for EU clients: → Partner with EU MiFID firm (3-6 months, fast entry) or acquire EU MiFID firm (7-12 months, full control).

Existing EU tech/payments firm wanting crypto services: → Partner with MiFID firm using Article 60 (fastest) or build CASP (full control, crypto-only).

Building comprehensive EU financial services platform (crypto + traditional securities): → Acquire or build MiFID firm (7-13 months), then use Article 60 for crypto. Only makes sense if you need EU wealth management/brokerage capabilities beyond crypto.

Stablecoin issuer wanting EU payment distribution: → Partner with existing EU EMI (3-6 months). Don't build EMI (18-24 months—unrealistic).

EU bank/investment firm with Article 60 eligibility but wanting risk separation: → Build separate CASP subsidiary (5-7 months) instead of using Article 60, if legal separation justifies timeline difference.

6 Conclusion: Match Pathway to Business Reality

Article 60 provides compelling advantages—speed, capital efficiency, leveraging existing regulatory credentials—but works only within clear boundaries. When equivalence constraints, standalone entity preferences, or service innovation requirements push beyond those boundaries, full CASP authorization becomes necessary.

The strategic imperative: Rigorously assess your business model against Article 60 constraints before assuming the fast track works. Discovering mid-preparation that critical services require full CASP wastes time and resources.

For entities where the MiCA Article 60 fits: Use it aggressively. The 3-4 month time advantage versus competitors navigating full authorization creates meaningful market position.

For entities where the MiCA Article 60 doesn't fit: Pursue the most efficient pathway for your situation:

• Crypto-only business? → Build CASP (5-7 months)

• Need fast market test? → Partner (3-6 months)

• Want full control with existing infrastructure? → Acquire MiFID firm (7-12 months)

• Long-term strategic EU presence? → Build MiFID firm (12+ months)

The worst outcome is misassessing fit, attempting Article 60 for services requiring full CASP, and discovering the mismatch after notification rejection—resulting in longer total time to market than if you'd pursued full CASP from inception.

Choose your path strategically, execute flawlessly, and let your competition discover Article 60's limitations the hard way.

About the Author

This article was supervised by Yiannos Ashiotis, Managing Partner at Pnyx Hill, an international advisory firm specializing in regulatory compliance, corporate governance, risk management, and digital asset regulation across the UAE and Europe. Our teams support banks, investment firms, asset managers, and crypto service providers with Article 60 eligibility assessment, notification execution, and MiCA compliance.

For advisory support on MiCA Article 60 strategy, equivalence analysis, or EU crypto market entry pathways, contact our EU and UAE digital asset advisory practice.

Contact our EU and UAE digital asset advisory practice