Banks represent 23% of crypto providers on EU’s MiCA register

Traditional banks now account for nearly 23% of all crypto-asset service providers listed on the European Union’s MiCA register, up from roughly 17% just a few months ago. The number of banks on the register has roughly doubled, climbing from around 40 to close to 80, a pace that outstrips the growth rate of their non-bank counterparts.

The total number of registered CASPs on the European Securities and Markets Authority’s ledger has grown from 243 entries in late June to 349 as of mid-September 2026. Banks are punching above their weight in that expansion, and the trend is being driven overwhelmingly by one country: Germany.

Germany’s banking sector goes all in

The surge is largely a story about German financial institutions deciding, almost in unison, that crypto is no longer something to watch from the sidelines. Established commercial banks and a wave of regional cooperative banks, the Volksbanken and Raiffeisenbanken that form the backbone of Germany’s local lending network, have been registering with ESMA at a clip that makes other European markets look hesitant by comparison.

Deutsche Bank, the country’s largest lender, has announced plans to offer digital asset custody services aimed at institutional and corporate clients. The bank is targeting MiCA regulatory approval by October 2026, a timeline that would make it one of the most prominent traditional finance names to formally enter the European crypto custody market.

Why banks are moving faster than startups

One of the structural advantages banks enjoy under MiCA is Article 60’s notification route. Rather than going through the full licensing gauntlet that standalone crypto firms face, banks can leverage their existing regulatory standing to fast-track their entry into crypto services.

This regulatory shortcut helps explain why banks are growing their share of the register even as non-bank providers continue to represent the majority at 77%. Non-bank CASPs are still being added to the register, but they grew at a slower rate during the observed period. The licensing process for a crypto-native firm starting from scratch is simply more time-consuming than it is for an institution that already holds a banking license in an EU member state.