Poland Resubmits Rejected Crypto Bill Without Any Changes

Polish lawmakers have decided to revive a cryptocurrency regulation bill that was previously rejected by President Karol Nawrocki. This move escalates the already existing differences between President Nawrocki and Prime Minister Donald Tusk.

Key Takeaways

Polish lawmakers have resubmitted a crypto bill that was previously vetoed without any modifications.
Critics highlight that the new Bill 2050 closely resembles the blocked Bill 1424 and raises concerns about overregulation.
The debate on this bill is occurring while the EU's MiCA regulation is being rolled out, emphasizing the conflict between local and centralized oversight mechanisms.
President Nawrocki may be more open to the bill this time, although an alternative proposal is also being considered to align with EU regulations.

Poland resubmits vetoed crypto bill with ‘not even a comma’ changed

Just days after President Nawrocki vetoed the original bill, the Polska2050 party, which is part of the coalition governing the Sejm—Poland's lower house of parliament—reintroduced the same extensive crypto bill. Supporters of this new proposal, including Adam Gomoła from Poland2050, have labeled it an “improved” version of the vetoed Bill 1424. However, government spokesman Adam Szłapka has confirmed that there has not been “even a comma” changed in the resubmitted bill.

This division over the crypto bill arises during the implementation of the European Union's Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA), which is due to be compliant by July 2026 for EU cryptocurrency businesses.

Bill 2050: Critics Voice Their Concerns

The new draft of Poland's crypto bill stretches to 84 pages and essentially mirrors the original Bill 1424. Its purpose is to designate the Polish Financial Supervision Authority as the main regulator for the crypto asset market in the country. Crypto supporters, such as Polish politician Tomasz Mentzen, have previously described Bill 1424 as “118 pages of overregulation,” especially when compared to the more concise proposals in nearby EU nations like Hungary and Romania.

In a post on X, Mentzen criticized the government's decision, stating, “The government has once again adopted exactly the same bill on cryptoassets.” He further ridiculed Tusk's suggestion that the previous veto was linked to supposed “Russian mafia” involvement, asserting, “The bill is perfect, and anyone who thinks otherwise is funded by Putin.”

Government spokesperson Szłapka claimed that President Nawrocki is unlikely to veto the new proposal, following a classified security briefing in parliament last week, and he is now fully aware of the potential national security implications.

MiCA's Impact: A Tension Between Local and Centralized Oversight

The ongoing discussions regarding Poland's crypto bill are crucial for enforcing the EU-wide MiCA regulation. The proposed bill would shift market supervision responsibilities to the local financial regulator, which is a topic of growing concern among some EU member states advocating for a more centralized framework under the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), based in Paris.

In October, the Bank of France called on the EU to empower the ESMA with direct supervisory authority, cautioning that a fragmented oversight approach might weaken the financial sovereignty of the EU as a whole. Conversely, some member states, like Malta, argue against centralized oversight under MiCA, suggesting that it could impose additional supervisory burdens that stifle market innovation.

Notably, Polish economist Krzysztof Piech, a critic of the proposed crypto legislation, has raised questions about the necessity of local legislation, given that MiCA protections are set to come into force in 2026. Although local reports indicate that President Nawrocki may not veto the bill this time, there are also hints that his office has received an “alternative” proposal intended to promote more favorable market conditions. This alternative draft aims to align with the EU-wide MiCA framework while reducing direct oversight from the local regulatory body.