qerranews 
Political Rift Deepens
Poland’s crypto regulatory fight has reignited after lawmakers resubmitted an identical version of an 84-page crypto bill that was vetoed just days earlier by President Karol Nawrocki. The move has intensified political tensions between the president and Prime Minister Donald Tusk, signaling a deeper struggle over regulatory authority, national security concerns, and the country’s approach to the EU-wide MiCA framework.
The ruling coalition, Polska2050, pushed Bill 2050 back into the Sejm — Poland’s lower house of parliament — even though the president had previously rejected the same bill, known as Bill 1424. Despite claims by coalition member Adam Gomoła that Bill 2050 is an “improved” version, government spokesman Adam Szłapka conceded that “not even a comma” had been changed.
This contradiction has fueled public debate and raised questions about legislative consistency, political motivations, and the true implications of the bill for Poland’s crypto sector.
Identical Bill Returns
Critics wasted no time calling out the reintroduced draft. Tomasz Mentzen, one of the most vocal opponents of the original bill, described Bill 2050 as “118 pages of overregulation” and argued that it mirrors the original version almost word-for-word. His warnings highlight concerns among Polish crypto advocates who fear the legislation could burden local companies with disproportionate compliance demands compared to other EU states.
Mentzen even mocked Prime Minister Tusk’s claim that the earlier veto was tied to potential “Russian mafia” involvement. In a sharp social media jab, he wrote that the bill is “perfect” and “anyone who thinks otherwise is funded by Putin,” underscoring the sarcastic frustration shared by many in the crypto community.
The bill seeks to appoint the Polish Financial Supervision Authority (PFSA) as the country’s primary crypto market regulator — a role that some say could lead to heavy-handed local oversight at a time when MiCA is supposed to harmonize rules across the EU.
Interestingly, Szłapka suggested that President Nawrocki may not veto the bill this time, claiming that after a classified security briefing, the president “now has full knowledge” of the national security relevance of the legislation.
MiCA Oversight Clash
The dispute over Bill 2050 is more than a local political standoff — it represents a strategic debate about how EU-level crypto regulation should be implemented. Under MiCA, set to be fully enforced in 2026, member states must align with shared standards for market conduct, licensing, and consumer protection.
The central conflict revolves around who should supervise the crypto market:
– Local regulators like the PFSA
– Or a centralized EU authority like the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA)
Several member states, including France, have argued for a stronger ESMA role. In October, the Bank of France called for ESMA to be granted direct supervisory power, warning that fragmented oversight among national regulators could weaken the EU’s financial sovereignty.
Yet not all member states agree. Malta’s regulators, for example, warned that too much centralization could stifle innovation and add unnecessary layers of bureaucracy — risking the competitiveness of smaller crypto markets.
Poland’s proposed bill firmly leans toward local control, which critics argue is unnecessary given that MiCA already outlines comprehensive protections and responsibilities for national authorities.
Regulatory Uncertainty Ahead
One of the more prominent critics, Polish economist Krzysztof Piech, questioned the fundamental need for a separate national bill at this moment. With MiCA’s full protections coming into force in 2026, Piech argued that passing additional local legislation risks creating duplicative or conflicting rules, potentially confusing businesses and investors.
Local media reports also indicate that the president might be considering an alternative version of the bill — one that better aligns with MiCA and removes certain oversight responsibilities from the PFSA. This alternative draft is said to aim for more favorable market conditions, though details remain limited.
Regardless of which version progresses, the regulatory uncertainty is already shaping market sentiment. Crypto businesses operating in Poland now face a period of ambiguity as the political process unfolds.
What’s at Stake
Poland’s crypto community sees this battle as a test run for how MiCA will be interpreted across the EU. The outcome will influence:
– How much power national regulators can assert
– How closely countries follow EU-wide standards
– Whether member states will lean toward innovation or strict oversight
– How aligned Poland’s regulatory stance will be with its regional peers
With the July 2026 MiCA deadline approaching, regulatory clarity is becoming increasingly urgent for the industry.
Conclusion
Poland’s decision to refile its vetoed crypto bill unchanged has resurrected political tensions, sparked a renewed debate over national versus EU oversight, and placed the country at the center of Europe’s evolving crypto regulatory landscape. As lawmakers argue over control, alignment, and national security, crypto businesses and investors are left waiting for a clearer path forward.
Whether Poland adopts the current bill, introduces an alternative, or delays regulation until MiCA takes full effect, the outcome will shape the country’s crypto ecosystem for years to come.