Lithuania CASP licence
The Bank of Lithuania route in full: quick facts, service scope, capital, the authorisation process, timetable, requirements and what an engagement covers.
MiCA CASP authorisation
We prepare companies for authorisation as a crypto-asset service provider under Regulation (EU) 2023/1114, determining the class required, calculating the capital actually needed, building governance and substance, assembling the application and handling the regulator's questions.
Class 1 vs Class 2 vs Class 3
What separates the three prudential classes, what is identical across them, and why the class is a consequence of your services rather than a package you pick.
Lithuania vs Latvia
Same licence, different national procedure: Latvia publishes both its fees and meets applicants before the company exists. Lithuania publishes neither fee.
Lithuania vs Estonia
Applications in Estonian, an extra national act, and a sector that went from 641 licences to one authorised domestic CASP.
Lithuania vs France
Advice and portfolio permissions at double the European rate, and a simplified procedure for anyone holding a PACTE-era registration.
Lithuania vs Netherlands
The shortest transitional period in Europe and the third largest register. Infrastructure and venues, almost no advisory.
Lithuania vs Cyprus
Twenty-five authorisations and 96% of them may hold client assets. Cyprus is where Europe's retail trading platforms took their crypto permissions.
Lithuania vs Germany
The largest register in Europe at 89, and only 18% may hold client assets. Banks and brokers routing orders, not crypto venues.
Lithuania vs Malta
Malta holds 21 Article 63 authorisations to Lithuania's four, having regulated crypto since 2018. Three of them may run a trading platform; Lithuania has none.
Lithuania vs Poland
Poland has not designated an authority able to issue a CASP authorisation, so no application can be filed there. A Lithuanian licence passports in instead.
Where an engagement starts
With a paid assessment rather than a licence project. It examines the business model, owners, management, target markets, services, budget and AML and ICT architecture, and produces a go/no-go, the CASP class required, a gap list, a budget and a road map. It also tests whether an electronic money, payment or MiFID permission is engaged alongside the CASP authorisation, which is the question most often answered wrongly at the outset.
From there the work runs in four further stages: application build, implementation and substance, filing and regulatory questions, then post-authorisation compliance, passporting, reporting, and the annual recalculation of prudential safeguards. The stages in detail.
What MiCA makes identical everywhere
Before comparing two Member States it is worth being clear about how little of the regime actually varies. All of this is the same in every one of them, and a comparison that presents any of it as a difference is padding:
- The list of crypto-asset services that require authorisation (MiCA Article 3 and Annex IV)
- Minimum capital of EUR 50,000 / EUR 125,000 / EUR 150,000 by class (Annex IV)
- The fixed-overheads test: prudential safeguards at the higher of the Annex IV floor and a quarter of fixed overheads (Article 67)
- Application contents (Article 62(2)), and the RTS and ITS that specify their form
- Establishment conditions: registered office, effective management in the Union, at least one Union-resident director (Article 59)
- Governance and fit-and-proper requirements (Article 68)
- The mandatory refusal grounds (Article 63(10))
- EU passporting by notification, with the 15-calendar-day backstop (Article 65)
What differs is national: fees, the support available before filing, supervisory practice, the language of the file, how long the old regime was allowed to run, and which kinds of firm actually hold an authorisation there.
What we do not sell
A licence in 40 days, a guaranteed outcome, or a cheap jurisdiction. Authorisation is a decision of the competent authority, and MiCA Article 63(10) obliges it to refuse where the specified grounds are made out. What preparation changes is the probability of refusal and the number of information requests.
Draft: no operating entity attached yet.
These pages describe a service offering, but the company that would perform it, its
registration details and the named specialists behind it are not set in
site.config.ts. Until they are, this is a specification of the offer rather than a
live commercial page, and no contact route is published.