Binance withdraws MiCA application in Greece: The regulatory game behind the European licensing battle

On June 24, Binance withdrew its MiCA license application in Greece. According to Binance, after carefully evaluating the status and timeline of the Greek approval process, it decided to withdraw the MiCA application submitted to the Hellenic Capital Market Commission (HCMC) and will subsequently seek authorization in another EU member state. It also emphasized that user assets remain safe and accessible, and that affected European users will be directly notified of next steps.

Original post: https://x.com/binance/status/2069791259812839895

In fact, there is a background to this matter that many are unaware of: in less than a week, on July 1, 2026, the EU MiCA transitional period will officially end.

According to the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), after July 1 this year, any crypto asset service provider without MiCA authorization that continues to offer services to EU clients will be in violation of EU law. They must cease related services and execute an orderly exit or client migration plan.

Figure: ESMA official MiCA Timeline, source: gravityteam.co

Even if you hold a local financial license from some European countries, without a MiCA permit after July 1, you cannot conduct crypto asset-related business in Europe. In other words, you have until July 1 to prepare and adjust.

This is actually very unfavorable for Binance. For Binance, the July 1 deadline represents a hard boundary. If the Greek application cannot yield a clear result before this deadline, its business arrangements, user communications, institutional partnerships, and regulatory narrative in Europe will all come under pressure.

As for Binance, it submitted the MiCA application to the Greek HCMC in January 2026. I estimate they believed the approval would likely be completed before July 1. However, as the deadline approaches, Greece remains ambiguous without a final decision.

In fact, earlier on June 16, Reuters cited sources reporting that Greek regulators were expected to reject Binance's MiCA application. Binance subsequently responded, stating it had been cooperating constructively with regulators for the past 18 months and indicated its understanding that the HCMC had completed its review, deeming the application compliant with MiCA requirements, and that the application had even been reviewed at the ESMA level.

Figure: Reuters article Original text: https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/binance-set-lose-eu-licence-bid-permission-offer-services-bloc-sources-say-2026-06-16/

In other words, Binance apparently still believed it had a compliant basis, but Greece's attitude remained ambiguous, with rejection seeming more likely.

Therefore, for Binance, Greece turned out to be an unreliable partner. Withdrawing the application on the 24th was essentially "cutting losses early," and it will now seek authorization in another EU member state.

In reality, Greece certainly hoped Binance's application would succeed there. As a smaller nation, attracting a major fintech project like Binance could bring potential investment, tax revenue, jobs, and more.

But why did Greece act hesitantly on this matter?

Let's delve deeper into the underlying interests.

What Did Binance Withdraw?

Focusing on Binance's announcement to European users, it confirmed the withdrawal of the MiCA application submitted in Greece, as mentioned at the beginning of this article.

The core information in the announcement has three layers:

First, Binance withdrew the MiCA application submitted to the Greek HCMC.

Second, Binance will pivot to another EU member state to continue seeking authorization.

Third, Binance emphasized that user assets remain safe and accessible, but some European users may experience impacts on service arrangements depending on their country of residence and account status. Binance will directly contact affected users through official channels to explain next steps.

So, these three statements together indicate that Binance has not announced an exit from the European market, nor has it abandoned MiCA. What it has abandoned is the "route using Greece as the entry point for an EU license." This means Binance still desires and is confident about obtaining MiCA approval.

Focusing on MiCA, it differs from local financial licenses in European countries; it's more like a universally applicable "business license" within the EU.

For example, in the early days, for an exchange to operate in Europe, a common path was to obtain different forms of registration or licenses in different countries, such as DASP in France, OAM registration in Italy, local registration in Spain, or CASP in Cyprus. Each country had different systems and regulatory intensities, allowing companies to disperse their布局 across multiple points.

After MiCA's implementation, it provides unified authorization and an EU passport mechanism. As long as a crypto asset service provider obtains MiCA authorization in one EU member state, it can theoretically serve the entire EU market through the EU passport mechanism.

In other words, if Binance obtained the license in Greece, the effect wouldn't just be entering Greece; it would be obtaining a pass to all 27 member states.

Therefore, Binance's withdrawal of the Greek application should not be simply understood as a local regulatory approval setback. It affects Binance's legal operating path across the entire EU.

In fact, on April 17, 2026, ESMA clearly reminded that the MiCA transitional period would end across the EU on July 1, 2026. After this date, crypto asset service providers without MiCA authorization continuing to offer related services to EU clients would violate EU law. ESMA also required unlicensed institutions to prepare orderly exit plans in advance, including notifying clients, arranging asset transfers, migrating to authorized CASPs, or guiding clients towards self-custodial wallets.

So, on June 24, with only one week left until July 1, Binance's withdrawal of the Greek application carries a strong sense of urgency.

From public information, the tide in Greece began to turn around mid-June.

As mentioned earlier, on June 16, Reuters cited sources reporting that Binance's MiCA application submitted to Greek regulators was expected to be rejected. If this result materialized, Binance could no longer rely on the Greek route to serve EU clients after July 1. Following the report, Binance quickly responded. It stated it had cooperated constructively with regulators for the past 18 months, invested significant compliance resources, and based on its own understanding, the HCMC had completed its review, deemed the application compliant with MiCA requirements, and the application had been reviewed at the ESMA level.

So, while regulatory sources suggested Greece might reject, Binance emphasized that "we believe the application meets requirements and have not received any formal contrary signal from the HCMC."

This indicates the application process entered a state of ambiguity. The official result wasn't public yet, but the market already felt negative expectations. The applicant was still maintaining its compliance narrative, but the time window didn't allow for prolonged delays.

By June 23, Greek media eKathimerini reported that Binance had withdrawn two applications submitted to the HCMC and the Bank of Greece, stating the entire process was considered "politicized" internally. The report also mentioned that while the Greek government was positive about Binance's investment, advisors from the Bank of Greece and the European Central Bank expressed negative opinions.

After Binance's announcement on June 24, it was confirmed that Binance had proactively withdrawn the Greek application and would turn to another EU member state to continue pursuing MiCA authorization.

For Binance, continuing to wait for a formal negative decision from Greece would burden it with a clear "MiCA application rejected" label. This label would affect its subsequent applications in other EU member states and influence the judgment of banks, institutional clients, and users. By proactively withdrawing now, although it still exposes the failure of the Greek route, it at least retains the right to proactively explain.

Externally, it can state that it still supports MiCA, still values Europe, and will find a clearer, more sustainable compliance path. Internally, it buys time to arrange EU users, mitigating panic withdrawals and service disruption impacts.

For other regulatory bodies, it can avoid entering the next round of negotiations carrying a formal rejection document.

Therefore, Binance's withdrawal of the Greek MiCA application fundamentally means the route using Greece as the entry point for Binance's European license has hit a dead end, but it leaves room for subsequent maneuvering.

From Cyprus Retreat to Greece Retreat

As early as June 2023, Binance's Cyprus entity applied for deregistration from the local crypto asset service provider register. At the time, Binance explained it was to concentrate resources on fewer regulated entities in preparation for the EU MiCA implementation. This marked the beginning of a shift in Binance's European strategy.

So, Binance's retreat from Cyprus was essentially reorganizing the table for the MiCA era. It needed to reduce peripheral outposts and focus firepower on a few key markets.

However, the major US case in November 2023 became an unfavorable factor for Binance's compliance. At that time, Binance reached a settlement exceeding $4 billion with the US Department of Justice, Treasury, CFTC, and other agencies. US Department of Justice documents showed Binance admitted to violations related to anti-money laundering, unlicensed money transmission, and sanctions. CZ also admitted to failing to maintain an effective anti-money laundering program, resigned as CEO, and served several months in prison.

The impact of this on Binance wasn't just the fine. For an exchange, fines are a one-time cost, but reputational damage is a long-term liability.

During the CZ era, Binance was arguably the most typical high-speed growth machine in the global crypto market, with rapid product iteration, fast market entry, and rapid user growth, but often stepping on regulatory boundaries. After Richard Teng took over, Binance's worldview shifted to compliance, regulatory cooperation, institutionalized governance, transparency, and long-termism.

In fact, in a regulatory system like Europe's, a company's historical compliance issues don't automatically disappear just by changing the CEO or paying fines. Regulators will consider all potential risk factors comprehensively. Were these issues caused by the founder's personal style or the company's governance structure? Has there been a fundamental change now?

If the MiCA passport is approved, is there a risk of future problems, potentially affecting the EU's financial system?

From this point on, Binance's European license quest became more of a trust repair battle.

So, in January 2026, Binance bet on Greece.

Why Greece?

In fact, Greece's appeal to Binance lay in its concentrated approval resources, strong political willingness to attract investment, lower costs compared to traditional financial centers. Such a country possesses the institutional value of the EU passport system while potentially offering more operational room than countries with stronger regulatory traditions and higher political visibility. Moreover, there weren't many local MiCA benchmark cases at the time, and Binance hoped to become one.

Richard Teng also publicly stated at the time that Greece's workforce and security conditions gave it an advantage in selecting a European regulatory headquarters. When a global exchange CEO publicly discusses a country's advantages, it usually means the company has incorporated that location into its core strategic narrative.

For Greece itself, it also hoped to welcome Binance as a partner.

Greece is an EU member state but not a traditional European financial regulatory powerhouse. It wanted to attract investment and shape its fintech image.

After all, a large exchange establishing a European hub locally could bring jobs, tax revenue, legal and accounting service income, and could package Greece as a new node for Southern European fintech and crypto industries. So, a project like Binance would naturally hold significant appeal for Greece.

But Where Does Greece's Pressure Come From?

In fact, the purpose of MiCA is to eliminate regulatory arbitrage in European crypto regulation.

Before MiCA's full implementation, European crypto regulation was fragmented. Each country had its own registration system; some had high thresholds, others low. Some focused more on anti-money laundering registration, while others had begun establishing more complete frameworks for regulating digital asset service providers. For large exchanges, this meant getting a license in France, one in Italy, one in Spain, one in Cyprus, and expanding further into Poland, Sweden, and Lithuania.

The advantage of this approach was flexibility. If one country tightened regulation, another was fine. If a license was hard to obtain in one country, they could apply in another. In the early days, many crypto platforms survived in Europe this way.

However, after MiCA's implementation, this logic was completely rewritten.

Because MiCA's biggest feature is unified准入. As long as an exchange obtains authorization in one EU member state, it can theoretically serve the entire EU market through the EU passport mechanism. This means if Greece issued a license to Binance, it wouldn't just affect local users in Greece, but the market access of all 27 EU member states.

Figure: MiCA passport mechanism + CASP authorization process explanation, source: blog.amlbot.com

Therefore, if a highly controversial exchange with a heavy historical compliance burden and enormous global scale quickly obtained MiCA authorization through a relatively small member state with limited regulatory resources but strong investment attraction, it would inevitably lower standards for countries like Germany, the Netherlands, France, and Ireland, which have stronger regulatory capabilities and more complex financial systems.

Once this door was opened, other large crypto platforms would follow suit. Everyone would stop seeking the most mature regulatory countries and instead look for those easiest to communicate with, most willing to attract investment, and most in need of an industry success story. Ultimately, MiCA, designed to solve regulatory arbitrage, would become a tool for a new round of it.

So, on the surface, MiCA applications are decided by individual countries, like Greece's HCMC. But in reality, the opinions of ESMA and the European Central Bank (ECB) also matter.

Although ESMA does not directly issue licenses to crypto asset service providers—that is done by local competent authorities in each member state—ESMA plays a role in regulatory and standard coordination. It ensures that different member states do not apply the same rules with vastly different levels of strictness.

The ECB also lacks direct veto power over crypto licenses, but its influence is very strong in contexts related to financial stability, banking system risks, stablecoins, payment systems, and macroprudential oversight. Especially when a large exchange enters the EU single market, it involves not just a crypto platform, but user assets, banking channels, payment clearing, stablecoin liquidity, and potential systemic risk spillovers.

Therefore, what Greek media termed "politicization" is more accurately described as this approval process being placed within the shared context of EU financial sovereignty, regulatory reputation, member state interest competition, and the trust deficit of large exchanges regarding compliance.

Who Might Be the Other EU Member State Binance Mentioned?

Currently, Coinbase has announced obtaining a MiCA license through the CSSF in Luxembourg, and Kraken has obtained MiCA authorization through the Central Bank of Ireland.

Following such paths, once a platform completes MiCA authorization in one EU member state, it can serve the entire EU market via the EU passport mechanism. Their biggest advantage next is the ability, after July 1, to compete for institutional clients, compliance-sensitive users, and partners in banking, payments, and fiat on/off ramps, backed by regulatory certainty.

For Binance, short-term revenue loss in Europe might not be fatal. Binance still has global liquidity, emerging market coverage, and a complete product line. However, Europe is a showcase market for global regulatory credibility. Failing to secure MiCA could potentially slow down Binance's legitimacy repair process.

Besides the exchange business, this could also impact banking partnerships, institutional capital, stablecoins, RWA strategies, and perceptions of Binance's compliance capabilities in other jurisdictions. For a platform transitioning from the aggressive expansion of the CZ era, the time cost of rebuilding trust might be more important than short-term trading volume loss.

Long-term, this will benefit platforms with higher compliance costs, more transparent governance structures, and lighter historical baggage. It will also benefit TradFi background institutions entering crypto custody, tokenization, and payment clearing. Under a unified regulatory framework, the market will increasingly value platforms accepted by banks, institutions, and long-term regulators.

On the other hand, some high-frequency trading, high-risk appetite, and non-compliance-sensitive demands may continue to flow towards DEXs, non-custodial wallets, or non-EU platforms. The stratification, where compliant platforms serve institutional capital while on-chain and offshore markets cater to more native, aggressive crypto demands, will become increasingly evident.

For Binance, which is tirelessly seeking new partners, I believe the next stop could be France.

In fact, Binance previously completed DASP registration with the French AMF. Binance France SAS has been on the AMF whitelist since May 2022, covering services including custody, fiat-to-crypto trading, crypto-to-crypto trading, and operating a trading platform. Moreover, France was one of the earlier EU countries to establish a framework for digital asset service providers, with more mature regulatory experience, fintech policy narrative, and market influence than Greece.

Following the