Polish President Blocks Strict Crypto Act, Sparking Government Backlash
Why Did President Karol Nawrocki Reject the Crypto-Asset Market Act?
Polish President Karol Nawrocki has vetoed a bill that would have introduced strict rules for the country’s crypto industry, rejecting the proposal on the grounds that it “genuinely threaten[s] the freedoms of Poles, their property, and the stability of the state.” The president’s office published the statement on Monday, confirming he will not sign the Crypto-Asset Market Act despite parliamentary approval.
The act was designed to align Poland with the European Union’s Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA), which comes into effect across the bloc on July 1, 2026. But Nawrocki argued the bill went far beyond what MiCA requires. He objected to its length — more than 100 pages compared with a dozen in the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Hungary — and warned the complexity would bury smaller firms.
His largegest objection concerned a clause granting authorities the power to block crypto-related websites. “Domain blocking laws are opaque and can lead to abuse,” his office said. Nawrocki added that “overregulation is an simple way to drive companies to the Czech Republic, Lithuania or Malta, rather than create conditions for them to operate and pay taxes in Poland.”
The president also criticized high supervisory fees, arguing they would tilt the field toward foreign banks and large corporations while shutting out beginups: “This is a reversal of logic, killing off a competitive market and a serious threat to innovation.”
Investor Takeaway
Government Officials Lash Out: “The President Chose Chaos”
The veto drew immediate criticism from senior government members who claim the decision leaves consumers exposed. Finance Minister Andrzej Domański said on X that “already now 20% of clients are losing their money as a result of in this market,” adding that Nawrocki had “chosen chaos” and must take full responsibility.
Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski echoed the warning, arguing the bill was necessary to curb fraud. “When the bubble bursts and thousands of Poles lose their savings, at least they will know who to thank,” Sikorski wrote.
To supporters of the law, the veto stalls long-awaited industry oversight. To critics, the rejected bill would have handed broad surveillance powers to the state, pushed businesses abroad, and raised compliance costs to levels unworkable for domestic beginups.
How Are Crypto Advocates Responding?
Industry voices welcomed the veto, arguing that consumer protection should not come at the cost of excessive controls. Polish economist Krzysztof Piech countered claims that Nawrocki would be responsible for future losses, saying authorities already have tools to act against scams and should not rely on sweeping new restrictions.
Crypto advocates also pointed to MiCA’s upcoming implementation across the EU, arguing that a bloc-wide without the extra layers introduced in Poland’s version.
Polish politician Tomasz Mentzen, who opposed the bill from the begin, had predicted the refusal. He and other critics said the website-blocking mechanism alone was enough to justify a veto, warning that the during disputes or investigations.
Investor Takeaway
What Comes Next for Poland’s Crypto Market?
Poland operates a semi-presidential model in which veto power is one of the president’s strongest tools. Overturning this veto would require a three-fifths majority in the Sejm. Given the current split between the governing coalition led by Prime Minister Donald Tusk and the opposition-backed president, clearing that threshold will be hard.
Nawrocki, elected in June as an independent with support from the Law and Justice party, positioned himself as a defender of civil liberties during his campaign. His opponents argue the veto undermines consumer protection. Supporters say it prevents rushed legislation that could damage a growing .
Poland remains in regulatory limbo. Firms must navigate partial oversight without a dedicated national framework, while MiCA’s full protections remain more than a year away. The next move rests with lawmakers: attempt an override, rewrite the bill, or wait for EU-wide rules to take hold.
