Source register
Regulatory writing goes stale silently. This page exists so a reader can see exactly which document a statement came from and how old the reading is.
Claims in use
| Claim | Read on | Next review |
|---|---|---|
| Lithuania’s transitional period for obtaining a crypto-asset service provider licence ended on 31 December 2025. | 2026-09-11 | 2026-12-11 |
| As at 3 March 2026, the Bank of Lithuania had granted four CASP authorisations under MiCA: Robinhood Europe UAB, UAB “Decentralized” (CoinGate), Nuvei Liquidity UAB and Micar assets UAB. | 2026-09-11 | 2026-10-11 |
| On ESMA data cited by the Bank of Lithuania on 3 March 2026, Finland had issued five CASP authorisations, Lithuania four, Latvia two and Sweden one. | 2026-09-11 | 2026-10-11 |
| Annex IV sets permanent minimum capital of EUR 50 000 for class 1, EUR 125 000 for class 2 and EUR 150 000 for class 3, by reference to the crypto-asset services the provider is authorised for. | 2026-09-14 | 2027-03-14 |
| Article 67(1) requires prudential safeguards of at least the higher of the Annex IV minimum and one quarter of the preceding year’s fixed overheads, reviewed annually. | 2026-09-14 | 2027-03-14 |
| Under Article 67(2), a provider that has not been in business for a year uses the projected fixed overheads for its first 12 months, as submitted with its application, for that calculation. | 2026-09-14 | 2027-03-14 |
| Article 67(3) removes from the fixed-overheads figure: profit-dependent staff bonuses and remuneration, employees’, directors’ and partners’ shares in profits, other fully discretionary appropriations of profit and variable remuneration, and non-recurring expenses from non-ordinary activities. | 2026-09-14 | 2027-03-14 |
| Article 63(1) requires the competent authority to acknowledge receipt of an application in writing within five working days. | 2026-09-14 | 2027-03-14 |
| Article 63(2) gives the competent authority 25 working days from receipt to check whether the application is complete against the Article 62(2) list, and to set a deadline for any missing information. | 2026-09-14 | 2027-03-14 |
| Article 63(3) allows the competent authority to refuse to review an application that remains incomplete after the deadline it set. | 2026-09-14 | 2027-03-14 |
| Article 63(9) gives the competent authority 40 working days from receipt of a complete application to adopt a fully reasoned decision granting or refusing authorisation, and five working days from that decision to notify the applicant. | 2026-09-14 | 2027-03-14 |
| Article 63(9) requires the assessment to take into account the nature, scale and complexity of the crypto-asset services the applicant intends to provide. | 2026-09-14 | 2027-03-14 |
| Under Article 63(6) the competent authority may consult AML/CFT authorities and financial intelligence units to verify that the applicant has not been the subject of an investigation into money laundering or terrorist financing. | 2026-09-14 | 2027-03-14 |
| Article 63(8) requires the competent authority to refuse authorisation where third-country law governing persons with close links to the applicant, or difficulties enforcing it, prevent effective supervision. | 2026-09-14 | 2027-03-14 |
| Article 63(12) allows the competent authority to request further information during the assessment period, but no later than the 20th working day of that period, in writing and specifying what is needed. | 2026-09-14 | 2027-03-14 |
| Under Article 63(12) the 40-working-day assessment period is suspended between the date of that request and receipt of the applicant’s response, for no more than 20 working days. Any further requests are at the authority’s discretion and do not suspend the period. | 2026-09-14 | 2027-03-14 |
| Article 63(10) requires refusal where there are objective and demonstrable grounds that the management body threatens sound management, business continuity, clients’ interests or market integrity or exposes the applicant to serious money laundering or terrorist financing risk; that management body members fail the Article 68(1) criteria; that qualifying holders fail the Article 68(2) repute criteria; or that the applicant fails, or is likely to fail, any requirement of the Title. | 2026-09-14 | 2027-03-14 |
| Article 63(13) requires competent authorities to communicate the Article 109(5) information to ESMA within two working days of granting authorisation, and to inform ESMA of refusals. | 2026-09-14 | 2027-03-14 |
| Article 59 requires a registered office in a Member State where at least part of the crypto-asset services are carried out, the place of effective management in the Union, and at least one director resident in the Union. | 2026-09-14 | 2027-03-14 |
| Article 59(5) prohibits a person that is not an authorised crypto-asset service provider from using a name or issuing marketing communications suggesting that it is one, or likely to create confusion in that respect. | 2026-09-14 | 2027-03-14 |
| Article 59(7) provides that a crypto-asset service provider serving clients cross-border is not required to have a physical presence in the host Member State. | 2026-09-14 | 2027-03-14 |
| Under Article 65 the home authority communicates a cross-border notification to host single points of contact, ESMA and EBA within 10 working days, and the provider may begin from receipt of that communication or at the latest from the 15th calendar day after submitting the information. | 2026-09-14 | 2027-03-14 |
| Article 68(1) requires members of the management body to be of sufficiently good repute and to possess appropriate knowledge, skills and experience both individually and collectively, and to demonstrate that they can commit sufficient time to their duties. | 2026-09-14 | 2027-03-14 |
| Article 68(2) requires direct and indirect holders of qualifying holdings to be of sufficiently good repute, and in particular not to have been convicted of money laundering or terrorist financing offences or other offences affecting their repute. | 2026-09-14 | 2027-03-14 |
| Article 68(3) allows competent authorities to act where a qualifying holder’s influence is likely to be prejudicial to sound and prudent management, including suspending the voting rights attaching to those holdings. | 2026-09-14 | 2027-03-14 |
| Article 62(2)(j) requires the technical documentation of ICT systems and security arrangements to be accompanied by a description in non-technical language. | 2026-09-14 | 2027-03-14 |
| Article 62(2)(d) requires a programme of operations setting out the types of crypto-asset services the applicant intends to provide, including where and how those services are to be marketed. | 2026-09-14 | 2027-03-14 |
Claims held back
These have not been checked against the primary text. They are listed rather than hidden, because the honest position is that they are widely repeated and not yet confirmed here. No page may publish them. The production build fails if one is referenced.
| Claim | Why it is held back |
|---|---|
| The Lithuanian state fee for issuing a CASP licence is EUR 2 425, and the Bank of Lithuania charges an annual supervisory fee of 0.7% of revenue subject to a EUR 3 000 minimum. | Sourced only to consultancy blogs. No Lithuanian fee resolution or Bank of Lithuania fee schedule located. Not publishable. |
| Lithuania requires at least two EEA-resident directors, one of them ordinarily resident in Lithuania. | Conflicts with Article 59, which requires effective management in the Union and at least one Union-resident director. If Lithuania imposes more, it must be cited to national law. Probably wrong as stated. |
Primary documents
- EUR-Lex Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 (MiCA), consolidated text
- Bank of Lithuania · 2025-07-21 Investors should find out if their crypto-asset service provider intends to be licensed
- Bank of Lithuania · 2026-03-03 An authorisation of a crypto asset service provider granted to Micar assets, UAB
- Bank of Lithuania Supervised financial market participants
- Bank of Lithuania Authorisation of crypto-asset service providers
- ESMA Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA)
What counts as a source here
In order: the text of the regulation, then the national law, then the competent authority's own published material, then the European supervisory authorities' standards and guidelines. Commentary by law firms and consultancies is not a source for a date or a figure, however confidently it is written. That rule exists because a specific piece of commentary was nearly cited on this site as current guidance when it was in fact published in December 2023, before the regulation applied.