Poland’s regulatory debate, which has increasingly become a test of political power in recent weeks, has taken a new turn. On December 9, the government led by Donald Tusk re-submitted the draft law on crypto business, in almost unchanged form, which was rejected by President Karol Nawrocki a few days earlier. The move deepens the rift between the Liberal government and the president, who is closer to the right, and raises the question of whether the regulations provide real protection or make the market impossible?
What has happened so far?
The proposal, known as Bill 1424, was originally introduced in late June and was passed by the Sejm (the lower house) in late September with 230 yes votes and 196 no votes. It went to the president on November 12, who used his veto on December 1. Nawrocki argued that the law threatened Poland’s freedom, property and state stability. He found the provision that would allow the government to immediately block the websites of crypto companies to be particularly worrying, as this would be an overly broad and abuseable authority.
The veto was also supported by Sławomir Mentzen, a leading Konfederacja politician, who said the original proposal would have destroyed the Polish crypto market. And the government is sharp respondedFinance Minister Andrzej Domański said the president “has chosen anarchy” and must “take full responsibility for the consequences.”
On December 5, the government attempted to override the presidential veto, but this required a three-fifths majority, which ultimately failed. According to press reports, Tusk also privately indicated that he believed Russian intelligence services could easily exploit the lack of regulation to launder money or create financing channels.
The EU framework and Polish competitiveness
The Polish debate can actually be interpreted in the European regulatory environment. The European Union adopted the MiCA Regulation on Crypto Markets in 2023, the implementation of which must be resolved by July 1, 2026. The MiCA stipulates that each member state must designate a supervisory authority for the crypto market, namely KNF in Poland.
However, the Polish design exceeded MiCA’s expectations in several respects. It imposed much stricter conditions on the licensing of CASP providers (crypto asset providers), including higher capital requirements, detailed internal controls and extensive anti-money laundering procedures. It would also have introduced criminal liability for violations related to certain crypto transactions, with fines of up to 10 million zloty and two years in prison. This level of accuracy is not included in the MiCA at all.
According to critics, i.e. various opposition politicians and crypto experts, the regulations are excessively strict. Several people pointed out that KNF is one of the slowest licensing authorities in the EU, a process that can take up to 30 months. By comparison, Germany or the Czech Republic, for example, have implemented MiCA much more easily. Many therefore believe that Poland has broken the rules.
The political game
On December 10, the Polska2050 coalition submitted a new draft, called Bill 2050. According to government spokesman Adam Szlapka, “not a single comma has changed” compared to the original. This further increased the tension, because according to many, the government is not really looking for a compromise.
At the same time, local press reported that Nawrocki’s office also received an alternative proposal, which may be more beneficial to the domestic crypto industry while complying with the EU framework. This alternative would reduce the direct supervisory powers of the KNF and would also fit better with the structure of MiCA, creating less overlap between national and EU regulations.
What happens if the scheme is not completed on time?
The Finance Minister previously drew attention to the fact that if Poland does not establish proper supervision by July 1, 2026, foreign crypto companies will not be able to register in the country. This would mean that around 18 percent of Polish crypto investors would be forced to turn to other EU member states. As a result, tax and duty revenues would flow abroad and consumer protection would also be weakened.
An estimated 20 percent of Polish crypto investors have experienced some form of fraud or abuse, which is also a strong argument for regulation. The only question is how the country finds the balance between action against abuses and support for innovation.
Looking ahead
The coming months could be crucial. If Nawrocki vetoes Bill 2050 (or an amended version) again, Parliament will have until July 2026 to take action, either by approving the alternative proposal or by overriding the veto. It is also possible that both parties will eventually have to compromise, and a simpler version closer to MiCA will be the solution.
As the EU deadline approaches, it becomes increasingly urgent for Poland to resolve the situation, otherwise crypto companies and investors will easily look for a more favorable environment for them in other European markets.
#Polish #crypto #law #debate #president #government