Belgium’s financial regulator has escalated enforcement under the EU’s Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) framework by issuing a fresh warning to consumers about six crypto-asset service providers (CASPs) it says are operating without authorization. The notice comes days after the EU’s MiCA transitional period ended, pushing regulators across member states into a more active licensing enforcement phase.
On Monday, the Financial Services and Markets Authority (FSMA) published a list of entities it identified as unauthorized CASPs active in Belgium. The regulator named Aurum Foundation, Bank Bit, Bithf Pro, Dxago, Global Dynamic Trade, and ZeriaFunding, and said it has added them to its roster of fraudulent CASPs.
Key takeaways
- FSMA warns consumers not to engage with six named crypto firms it says are not authorized under MiCA in Belgium.
- The regulator urges users to verify a provider’s status using the official FSMA CASP register before depositing funds or trading.
- MiCA entered into force at the end of 2024, and Belgium’s transitional licensing window closed on July 1.
- FSMA reiterates that crypto assets are volatile, may face liquidity constraints, and are not protected by compensation schemes that could reimburse losses.
FSMA names six unauthorized CASPs in Belgium
FSMA’s consumer warning is anchored in the idea that MiCA authorization is now the gatekeeper for crypto services offered in the country. In its notice, the regulator points out that the specified CASPs are operating without the required permission and therefore fall outside the legal perimeter set by Belgium’s MiCA guidance.
The FSMA advised consumers to reject offers from the named companies and to check whether any crypto-asset provider appears on its official CASP register. That emphasis matters for users because it shifts the compliance question from “is this company active?” to “is it authorized to operate what it claims to offer in Belgium?”
FSMA also reminded readers that even legitimate crypto activity carries risk: crypto assets can be highly volatile, liquidity can be limited, and—critically—losses are not covered by a compensation scheme that would reimburse clients in the event of provider failure.
MiCA licensing moves from transition to enforcement
MiCA entered into force at the end of 2024 and establishes a harmonized EU-wide framework for CASPs and issuers. According to FSMA’s guidance, authorized CASPs are the only entities permitted to offer a range of crypto asset services in Belgium, including custody, trading platforms, exchange services (both crypto-to-fiat and crypto-to-crypto), order execution, transfer services, advice, and portfolio management.
Belgium’s transitional regime expired on July 1—the same day by which existing providers across the EU were generally required to obtain authorization or stop offering crypto-asset services. In practice, that timing is what turns the MiCA deadline into an enforcement moment: regulators can more clearly differentiate between entities actively complying with authorization requirements and those that continue to market services without approval.
Earlier coverage from Cointelegraph noted that the transition period gave some companies time to apply and adjust operations ahead of the formal licensing cut-off. As that period ended, enforcement actions like FSMA’s warning suggest regulators are now leaning harder into compliance checks rather than relying on transitional cover.
Pressure on European crypto firms around July 1
The July 1 deadline has been a recurring stress point for crypto businesses that planned to operate within the EU while navigating authorization requirements. In June, Cointelegraph reported that Binance withdrew its MiCA application in Greece and intended to seek authorization in another EU jurisdiction just before the deadline.
At the time of the withdrawal, Binance said it was “not leaving Europe,” while acknowledging that some users could be affected during the compliance process. That episode illustrated a broader pattern: the closer firms got to July 1, the more authorization strategies became dependent on selecting the right jurisdiction and meeting local procedural requirements under the broader MiCA regime.
While FSMA’s latest warning focuses on unauthorized entities, the Binance case highlights the difference between firms that are actively attempting to route compliance correctly versus those that continue operating without authorization at all. For investors and users, that distinction is practical: the risk profile changes when a provider is unlicensed under the regime designed to regulate custody, exchanges, and related services.
What Belgium users should do now
FSMA’s notice is straightforward in its consumer orientation. The regulator’s advice is to avoid the named companies and to verify any crypto-asset provider through the official CASP register before sending funds or relying on services such as custody or trading access.
Given FSMA’s reminder that crypto exposures are not protected by compensation schemes, the regulator’s warning underscores a key investor takeaway: authorization is not just paperwork—it can signal that the provider falls under a supervisory perimeter, which matters when liquidity problems or platform disruptions occur.
Readers should watch how FSMA’s enforcement posture evolves in the weeks ahead, particularly whether additional CASPs are added to its warnings list and how quickly consumers see authorization status reflected in the regulator’s CASP register following the end of the transitional period on July 1.
