MiCA Capital Requirements for CASPs: ESMA Clarifies Calculation Rules

In February 2026, the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) updated its Q&A database relating to the MiCA Regulation. The response published by the European Commission (Q&A No. 2349) clarifies the rules for calculating capital requirements for Crypto-Asset Service Providers (CASPs), addressing important interpretative uncertainties that have emerged in market practice.

Interpretative uncertainties in calculating CASP expensesunder MiCA

Under Article 67(3) of the MiCA Regulation, crypto-asset service providers are required to calculate their fixed overheads for the preceding year. The provision indicates that this calculation is performed by deducting strictly defined items from the total expenses.

The core of the question (submitted in November 2024) was to determine whether these “total expenses” refer to the sum of all costs (both fixed and variable) after profit distribution, or if they refer exclusively to total fixed overheads.

ESMA’s position on the calculation of capital requirements for CASPs

In its published response, ESMA dispels these doubts by adopting a strict interpretation of the regulations:

• Comprehensive Calculation: CASPs must base their calculations on the sum of all indirect expenses, encompassing both fixed and variable costs.
• Consumer Protection Focus: This approach stems from the fact that the prudential requirements outlined in Article 67 of MiCA serve primarily as an instrument for consumer protection. Consequently, a firm’s capital framework must absolutely guarantee the coverage of all operating costs.

CASP capital requirements under MiCA compared with other EU regulations

For financial sector entities, this new interpretation also introduces an important systemic clarification when compared to other regulatory frameworks:

• Strict Deductions: During calculations, entities may only deduct items explicitly listed in Article 67(3)(a)–(d) of the MiCA Regulation.
• No Additional Deductions: No other items are eligible for deduction.
• Exhaustive Nature: Unlike Article 13(4) of the Investment Firms Regulation (IFR) (EU) 2019/2033, which establishes only a minimum baseline for deductions, Article 67 of MiCA is completely exhaustive.
• Zero Discretion: As a result, Article 67 leaves no margin of discretion for either National Competent Authorities or CASPs themselves to define deductible items.

MiCA licence for CASPs – do the new ESMA guidelines affect your business?

Our law firm supports Crypto-Asset Service Providers (CASPs) in obtaining MiCA licences and aligning their operations with regulatory requirements. We assist clients in interpreting the positions of supervisory authorities and translating them into practical and secure business solutions.

If you are preparing to obtain a CASP licence or wish to verify whether your activities comply with MiCA requirements, we invite you to contact our team.