services / token offerings & white papers
ICO & Token Offerings in Poland under MiCA – White Paper, Classification and the Cross-Border Route
Issuing a token to the Polish market? Poland hasn’t designated an authority for token-offering white papers – and a Polish-incorporated offeror can’t simply file elsewhere. Here’s how classification, the white paper and notification actually work, and how the offer is structured so that it can go ahead at all.
The short answer No Polish authority receives token-offering white papers, and a Polish offeror’s home Member State is fixed by its registered office. Unless the offer is exempt under Article 4(2), classify the token, draft the white paper and structure the offer through an offeror or trading platform established in a Member State with a functioning authority – from there it carries EU-wide.Direct counsel from the attorney handling your file – not an account manager.
State of play – October 2026
As of October 2026, Poland has not designated a competent authority for offers to the public of crypto-assets other than asset-referenced tokens (ARTs) and e-money tokens (EMTs). The national Crypto-Asset Market Act – vetoed three times (December 2025, February 2026, and again on 11 June 2026) – has not entered into force, so for a Title II token offering there is no Polish addressee to notify a white paper to. KNF is the competent authority only for EMT issuers – a competence that flows directly from MiCA (Article 3(1)(35)(b)), because KNF supervises electronic money institutions.
The mechanics mirror the CASP position: in both regimes the competent authority follows the registered office. A CASP is authorised in its home Member State, where it must have its registered office (Articles 59(2) and 3(1)(33)(f) of MiCA) – which is why Polish businesses establish an entity in another Member State and passport into Poland. A Title II offeror is in the same position: for an offeror with its registered office in the EU, the home Member State is the one where that office is located (Article 3(1)(33)(a)). Paradoxically, an offeror established outside the EU with no branch here may choose its home Member State (Article 3(1)(33)(c)); a Polish-incorporated one may not, and today has no authority to notify. The workable routes are: (1) an offer that needs no white paper at all – to fewer than 150 persons per Member State, for total consideration of up to EUR 1,000,000 over 12 months, or to qualified investors only (Article 4(2)) – which works only while the token is not headed for admission to trading (Article 4(4)); (2) making the offer through an offeror established in another Member State; and (3) bringing the token to market through admission to trading on a platform operated by a CASP in another Member State, which draws up and notifies the white paper to its own home authority (Articles 5(2)–(3) and 8(1)).
Each route changes who carries Article 15 liability – although under a written arrangement with the platform, the person seeking admission remains liable for the information it supplies (Article 15(3)). The choice therefore belongs in the structuring phase, not after the token is built. (I set out the wider Polish legislative picture in → Crypto License in Poland under MiCA.)
The route now: classify, draft, notify – and who actually files
MiCA’s white paper regime is a single EU framework: the same content rules (Article 6), the same notification mechanics (Article 8), and the same marketing-communication standard (Article 7) apply in every Member State. A white paper for an offer of “other” crypto-assets is notified to the competent authority of the home Member State at least 20 working days before publication; once notified in one Member State, it carries across the EU. The home Member State, however, is fixed by the offeror’s registered office, not chosen (Article 3(1)(33)(a)). The Polish gap is therefore not a dead end – but it is a structuring question, not a choice of regulator: unless the offer is exempt, it has to be made through an offeror or a trading platform whose home Member State has a functioning authority.
This is where I work as your lead counsel. You deal with one named attorney – not an account manager or a queue – who classifies the token, drafts the white paper, and runs the notification and regulator correspondence end to end. I have run a utility-token issuance as sole legal lead: classifying the token and structuring its staking and governance mechanics to stay outside the definition of a financial instrument, drafting the bilingual white paper, notifying the regulator, and handling the review – including producing, on the regulator’s request, the standalone legal opinion that the token was not a financial instrument.
Token classification: the decision that governs everything (Title II / III / IV)
Classification is the first and most consequential step. It decides which regime applies, which disclosures you owe, and whether parts of your token fall outside MiCA altogether – under MiFID II, as financial instruments. MiCA sorts crypto-assets into three buckets: e-money tokens (EMTs, Title IV), asset-referenced tokens (ARTs, Title III), and “other” crypto-assets including utility tokens (Title II). The buckets are not self-evident from how a token is marketed; regulators read the mechanics, not the label.
Reference a single fiat currency and function as electronic money. Authorisation as a credit institution or EMI under Article 48(1) – no standalone EMT-issuer route, a white paper is still required, and paying interest is prohibited.
Maintain a stable value by referencing another value or right, or a combination of them, including one or more official currencies (Article 3(1)(6)). A token backed by a single commodity, such as gold, is an ART; a token referencing a single official currency is an EMT (Article 3(1)(7)). Authorisation (or, for credit institutions, the Article 17 route), own funds, a segregated reserve of assets and a standing redemption right.
Every crypto-asset that is neither an ART nor an EMT, and is not excluded from MiCA altogether – financial instruments and genuinely unique, non-fungible crypto-assets among them (Article 2(3)–(4)). No pre-approval, but mandatory white paper and notification unless an Article 4(2) or 4(3) exemption applies.
The pressure points sit in token functionality. A staking or reward mechanism can tip a “utility” token toward a financial instrument if the return carries the economics of a yield; a governance right can do the same if it is structured as a profit or control entitlement rather than genuine utility. Getting this wrong is not a documentation problem – it re-routes the whole project to the wrong regime, and in the worst case the wrong regulator.
This is territory I have worked hands-on: structuring a utility token’s staking mechanism specifically so it would not be classified as a financial instrument, and designing token-based governance in which holders vote on initiatives and the outcome is contractually binding on the issuer’s partner – all documented to survive regulator scrutiny. When the regulator asked for a standalone opinion confirming the token was not a financial instrument, I produced it.
The white paper: content, liability and format (Articles 6, 15)
A crypto-asset white paper is not a marketing document with legal polish – it is a regulated disclosure with statutory content and personal liability attached. Article 6 fixes what it must contain: the identity of the offeror, issuer and any trading-platform operator; a full description of the project and the rights and obligations attached to the token; the underlying technology; the risks; and a sustainability disclosure on the consensus mechanism’s climate impact. It must be fair, clear and not misleading, must not contain material omissions, and must not make any assertion about the token’s future value beyond the mandatory risk statement. Under Article 15, the offeror, the person seeking admission to trading or the trading-platform operator that drew up the white paper – together with the members of its administrative, management or supervisory body – is liable to holders for loss caused by information that is incomplete, unfair, unclear or misleading. Any contractual exclusion or limitation of that liability has no legal effect (Article 15(1)–(2)). That is why who signs the white paper is a governance question, not a formatting one.
Format is now a hard gate. Article 6(10) requires the white paper to be made available in a machine-readable format, and since 23 December 2025 that means XHTML with embedded Inline XBRL under Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2984 – a PDF alone no longer meets the technical submission requirement. I have taken a white paper through exactly this friction: a regulator returning the document on formatting grounds, at the point when PDF was still tolerated under the transitional lead-in, and the iXBRL/taxonomy conversion that the shift now forces on every issuer.
Notification, publication and admission to trading (Articles 8, 9, 5)
For “other” crypto-assets there is no pre-approval – but there is mandatory notification. Under Article 8, the white paper is notified to the competent authority of the home Member State at least 20 working days before publication, with an explanation of why the token should not be considered a crypto-asset excluded from MiCA – above all, a financial instrument – nor an ART or an EMT (Article 8(4)), together with a list of the host Member States targeted. This is where the classification analysis from Section 03 becomes a regulatory filing. The authority does not approve it; it transmits it to ESMA’s public register, and the offeror then publishes it under Article 9 before the offer opens.
Where the token is instead being brought onto a trading venue, Article 5 applies the same draw-up-notify-publish discipline to the person seeking admission to trading. One trap sits at the seam: under Article 4(4), signalling an intention to seek admission to trading switches off the offer-level exemptions below – so a “we’ll list later” line in a deck can retro-impose the full white paper obligation.
When you do not need a white paper (Articles 4(2) and 4(3))
Two distinct carve-outs, and they are not interchangeable.
Article 4(2) – lifts the white paper obligation
- An offer to fewer than 150 persons per Member State.
- An offer whose total consideration does not exceed EUR 1,000,000 over 12 months.
- An offer addressed solely to qualified investors who can only hold the token.
Article 4(3) – switches off Title II in its entirety
- The token is offered for free.
- It is automatically created as a reward for maintaining the ledger or validating transactions.
- It is a utility token for a good or service that already exists or is in operation.
- It circulates only in a limited network.
The edges are sharp and read against you: a token is not “offered for free” where purchasers must provide personal data, or where the offeror takes any fee, commission or benefit in exchange. And the utility-token carve-out covers only goods or services that already exist or are in operation (Article 4(3)(c)). A utility token for something not yet in operation needs a full white paper, and the offer itself is capped at 12 months from the date the white paper is published (Article 4(6)). Relying on an exemption is a legal position to be documented, not a box to be ticked.
Marketing communications and the placement trap (Article 7)
Article 7 governs everything you say about the offer. Marketing communications must be clearly identifiable as such, fair, clear and not misleading, and consistent with the white paper. They must state that a white paper has been published and give the address of the offeror’s website – where the white paper itself must be available (Article 9(1)) – together with a telephone number and an email address, and carry the prescribed statement that the communication has not been reviewed or approved by any competent authority (Article 7(1)). In practice, a direct link to the white paper is the cleanest way to meet this. Marketing communications are notified to the competent authority on request (Article 8(2)), and none may be disseminated before the white paper is published (Article 7(2)).
The less obvious risk sits with partners and sponsors. When a third party promotes a token on the issuer’s behalf, the promotion can cross from “marketing” into placing of crypto-assets – a regulated crypto-asset service under Article 3 that the partner is not authorised to provide. I have run precisely this review on the partner side of a token project: structuring the marketing and promotional obligations so that the counterparty’s activity stayed on the right side of that line and did not amount to unauthorised placement.
ART and EMT issuers: a heavier regime entirely (Titles III and IV, Articles 16 and 48)
If classification lands the token as an asset-referenced token or an e-money token, the offer regime above is replaced by an authorisation regime. An ART issuer needs either authorisation from its home-state authority (Articles 16 and 21) or, if it is a credit institution, to follow the Article 17 procedure. It must hold own funds of the highest of EUR 350,000, 2% of the average reserve of assets, or one quarter of the previous year’s fixed overheads (Article 35(1)). It also needs a segregated reserve of assets and must give holders a standing redemption right. For a Polish-incorporated issuer the same home-state problem applies: its home Member State is the one where its registered office is located (Article 3(1)(33)(d)). For EMTs the constraint is structural: the issuer must be authorised either as a credit institution or as an electronic money institution under Article 48(1) – MiCA offers no standalone EMT-issuer authorisation, a white paper is still required, and paying interest on the token is prohibited. This is why classification comes first: the ART/EMT/“other” fork decides whether you are in this regime at all.
Pre-sale, SAFTs and token distribution
Most projects raise before the token exists, and the pre-sale instrument carries its own risk. I have drafted SAFTs for individual investors in a token pre-sale, alongside the distribution architecture that follows: allocation pools, cliff and vesting schedules, and a distribution mechanism built to minimise friction – letting a counterparty dispose of its allocation through a simple instruction while the legal and technical execution sat with us. A SAFT that promises a future token is not neutral ground: depending on how the return and the delivery are structured, it can raise the same financial-instrument question as the token itself, which is why classification governs the pre-sale as much as the offer.
Frequently Asked Questions
No. Poland has not designated an authority for offers of crypto-assets other than ARTs and EMTs, and a Polish-incorporated offeror cannot file elsewhere: its home Member State is Poland. It can still make an offer exempt under Article 4(2), or structure the offer through an offeror or trading platform established in a Member State with a functioning authority.
Asset-referenced tokens (Title III), e-money tokens (Title IV), and “other” crypto-assets including utility tokens (Title II). Classification is fact-specific and reads the mechanics, not the label.
Under Article 4(2): offers under 150 persons per Member State, under EUR 1,000,000 over 12 months, or solely to qualified investors. Under Article 4(3): free tokens, validation rewards, utility tokens already in operation, or limited-network tokens. Tokens for services not yet in operation do not qualify (Article 4(3)(c)).
At least 20 working days before publication (Article 8).
Yes – since 23 December 2025, XHTML with Inline XBRL under Regulation (EU) 2024/2984. A PDF alone is not compliant.
Yes. Staking, yield or governance mechanics can tip a token into MiFID II; the label “utility” does not settle it. ESMA’s guidelines on the qualification of crypto-assets as financial instruments set out the criteria.
start with classification
Tell me what you're issuing.
I'll reply within 1 business day with the classification I'd start from, the structure – and the jurisdiction – I'd use to bring the offer to market, and a fee proposal – in English or Polish.
Your data is used solely to respond to your message. Controller: Mateusz Świtalski Kancelaria Radcy Prawnego, Małachowskiego 8/P1, Poznań, info@switalski.law. Full details and your rights – Privacy Policy.
Direct counsel – no account managers, no anonymous queue. · Confidential · EN / PL