Exchanges without a verified MiCA entry
The list covers pending applications, platforms whose transitional period has ended, EEA restrictions, unverified status and protocol-scope cases that depend on the facts. Since 1 July 2026, an in-scope provider generally needs Article 63 authorisation or an eligible Article 60 notification route.
Which exchange statuses need extra verification?
Two major exchanges we track have different post-deadline risks. Binance withdrew its EU licence application on 24 June 2026 and announced restrictions for affected users in several EU markets. Binance said that it will seek authorisation in another member state, which it has not named. MEXC has no MiCA CASP authorisation, and the Dutch AFM warned that it was offering services without the required licence. Neither exchange appears in the ESMA register. Licensed options are compared in our MEXC alternatives, Bitget alternatives and BingX alternatives guides.
See the MiCA-licensed exchanges or the full filterable directory.
Missing and unclear entries are not all the same
The 53 platforms above fall into several statuses. A pending application differs from a wind-down. An unresolved entity match or a protocol-scope assessment needs a separate review. A registration outside the EEA does not create MiCA permission. The Saint Vincent and the Grenadines (SVG) registration comparison shows how domestic status differs from MiCA authorisation.
| What it means | ||
|---|---|---|
| PendingApplication in progress | Has applied for or publicly committed to a CASP licence. The decision was pending at the review date shown. | |
| RestrictedRestricting EEA users | At the review date shown, the firm was restricting, delisting or withdrawing products or services for EEA users. | |
| Not licensedNo MiCA licence | No MiCA authorisation at the review date shown. Any announced plans or applications are noted on the record. | |
| Out of scopePotentially out of scope | The protocol model may fall under MiCA Recital 22. Its interface, governance and intermediaries need a fact-specific review. | |
| UnclearStatus unclear | We could not confirm a clear MiCA status from public sources. |
Licensed CASP vs unlicensed or offshore platform
MiCA protections attach to the authorised legal entity, not to the brand or the website. The table compares what MiCA requires of an authorised crypto-asset service provider (CASP) with the position at a platform that has no MiCA authorisation.
| Topic | Licensed CASP | Unlicensed or offshore platform |
|---|---|---|
| Legal standing in the EEA | Authorised under Article 63 or notified under Article 60 (Article 59(1)). It may serve other member states after a notification under Article 65. | No right to provide crypto-asset services in the EU (Article 59). An authority can order the activity to stop without warning (Article 94(1)(h)). ESMA lists such firms in its Article 110 register. |
| Client crypto-assets | Assets in custody are legally segregated from the firm’s estate, so its creditors have no recourse to them (Article 75(7)). The firm keeps a register of positions for each client (Article 75(2)). | Set by the platform’s terms and the law of its home country. ESMA says clients of unauthorised CASPs do not benefit from MiCA protections for client assets. |
| Client money | Client funds go to a credit institution or a central bank by the end of the next business day, in accounts kept apart from the firm’s own (Article 70(3)). | No MiCA rule applies. |
| Loss of crypto-assets | The custodian is liable for losses from incidents attributable to it, up to the market value at the time of the loss (Article 75(8)). | Liability depends on the terms of use. |
| Complaints | Effective and transparent procedures, published, free of charge for clients (Article 71). | The terms decide. Some send disputes to arbitration outside the EU. |
| Conduct rules | Act honestly, fairly and professionally in the best interests of clients. Information and marketing must be fair, clear and not misleading (Article 66). Conflicts of interest must be managed and disclosed (Article 72). | No MiCA conduct rules apply. |
| Stablecoins | ESMA’s opinion of 8 October 2026 says authorised CASPs should not provide services for e-money or asset-referenced tokens that do not comply with MiCA (Articles 16, 48 and 66). | Can offer any stablecoin, including tokens without an authorised EU issuer. |
| If the platform exits | Custody, trading-platform and exchange firms must keep an orderly wind-down plan (Article 74). If an authorisation is withdrawn, the authority can order client contracts to move to another CASP (Article 94(1)(g)). | ESMA expects unauthorised CASPs to stop onboarding, limit services to selling or moving assets and give a deadline for closing residual positions (statement of 23 June 2026). |
| Reverse solicitation and VPNs | Not relevant. The firm may serve clients in its home state and notified host states. | Article 61 allows a non-EU firm to serve a client only at the client’s own exclusive initiative. Any solicitation in the EU ends the exception, whatever the contract says. A VPN does not change where you live. |
| Compensation schemes | None. Crypto-assets are not covered by deposit guarantee or investor compensation schemes. | None. |
Sources: Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 on EUR-Lex, the ESMA statement of 23 June 2026, the ESMA opinion of 8 October 2026 and the ESAs warning on crypto-assets (October 2025). Our guide on how to check a MiCA licence shows how to confirm which side of the table a platform is on.
Possible account changes
An in-scope platform without a current MiCA route can block new EEA sign-ups, reduce existing services or send an offboarding notice with a withdrawal deadline. Some firms continue to provide services without the required authorisation. Unclear entries and protocol-scope cases require separate checks of the entity and service. Verify the contracting entity and service before you rely on MiCA conduct, safeguarding or complaint rules. You can compare the licensed venues. Each detail page states the recorded situation and links to its sources.
Common questions
Is it illegal for me to use an unlicensed exchange from the EU?
MiCA regulates the provider, not the account holder. MiCA does not make it illegal for a user to hold an account. Since 1 July 2026, an in-scope firm generally needs Article 63 authorisation or an eligible Article 60 notification route to serve EU/EEA customers. A firm without a valid route can impose geo-restrictions, offboard users or remove services.
What should I do if my exchange is on this list?
Check its detail page for the specific situation, then follow the exchange’s dated official notices. Account access and withdrawals vary by platform and by the stage of a wind-down. Confirm the withdrawal process before you move assets. The licensed list shows the current MiCA register entries that we map to exchanges.
Why are DEXes like Uniswap listed separately as "out of scope"?
MiCA Recital 22 says the regulation should not apply where a service is provided in a fully decentralised manner without an intermediary. Whether a specific protocol, interface or governance arrangement qualifies depends on the facts. Our "out of scope" label is not a regulatory determination, and other EU rules can still apply.
Can an exchange on this list become licensed later?
Yes. Several have applications in progress, and the register can change each week. We record status changes in the changelog and recheck entries against the ESMA register.