MiCA's not enough: Bybit CEO says firms need other licenses to turn a profit in Europe

MiCA is a necessary passport to operate in Europe, but it is not a business model. That is the blunt verdict from Bybit CEO Ben Zhou, who revealed in April 2026 that his firm is currently losing money under its MiCA license — and that the regulatory framework, by design, keeps it that way. For crypto firms serious about profitability on the continent, MiCA is only the first door. The real money is locked behind two additional licenses that most operators have not yet obtained.

Why MiCA Alone Cannot Generate Profit

The core limitation is structural. Under MiCA's current scope, licensed firms are restricted to fiat-to-crypto and crypto-to-crypto transactions. That sounds workable until you consider what it excludes: derivatives, tokenized assets, and a broad range of financial instruments that constitute the majority of revenue in mature crypto markets. Zhou was direct about the arithmetic: "With the current MiCA framework, you can only do fiat-to-crypto, crypto-to-crypto," he said, adding, "We don't make money under the current MiCA license. But we're able to afford it because we're a big entity."

To unlock the full product stack, firms need two additional authorizations. A MiFID II license opens the door to derivatives and structured financial instruments — the high-margin segment that drives revenue for exchanges serving institutional clients. An Electronic Money Institution (EMI) license covers payment services and tokenized value storage. Together, these three credentials — MiCA, MiFID II, and EMI — constitute what Zhou describes as the minimum viable regulatory configuration for a profitable European operation.

"There's going to be market consolidation." — Ben Zhou, CEO, Bybit

Consolidation Is Already Underway

The June 30, 2026 deadline for MiCA's grandfathering period is accelerating a shakeout that was always coming. Smaller firms that entered Europe hoping MiCA compliance alone would sustain operations are discovering the economics don't work. Platforms like Kraken, Bitpanda, and Bitvivo have been profitable precisely because they secured multiple licenses well ahead of the deadline. They built the full regulatory stack; others built only the foundation.

Bybit's strategic choice to register with Austria's Financial Market Authority (FMA) rather than pursuing centralized ESMA authorization reflects a deliberate preference for local oversight relationships over efficiency. Whether that pays off longer-term will depend on how national regulators interpret MiCA's gray zones as enforcement matures.

• MiCA license: Covers fiat/crypto trading only — necessary but not sufficient
• MiFID II license: Required for derivatives and tokenized financial instruments
• EMI authorization: Required for payment services and tokenized money
• Bybit's profitability target: Within approximately two years of current losses

For investors and operators watching the European market, the implication is clear. The firms that treated MiCA compliance as a destination are now exposed. The real competitive advantage in post-MiCA Europe belongs to those that assembled the full three-license stack before the consolidation wave hits. Bybit can absorb losses as a long-term investment; most of its smaller competitors cannot. The next six months will determine which platforms survive as credible European businesses and which quietly exit the market.