Who is licensed to offer institutional crypto services in Europe

The licensing wave, visible in the register data

Four entities were licensed by the end of 2024. In the second quarter of 2026 alone, 105 were added.

The register, filterable

The B2B selection is preset. The toggle shows the complete register, which also contains brokers and trading venues for retail clients. Column headers sort.

What the register data shows

• Germany leads on the sheer number of licences (79), but not on custody: 27 licensed custodians sit in France, ahead of Cyprus (25). Germany has 16.
• Only 21 of 335 licences cover operating a trading venue. Custody (214) and transfers (199) are the norm; running a marketplace is the exception.
• A licence covers 3,4 of the ten services on average. Only 8 firms are licensed for custody alone; most combine it with exchange and transfer services.

All three figures are computed from the same dataset as the table above, not written by hand.

Custody and trading in the same hands

The register answers one question that no marketing page answers: does a custodian also run its own trading venue? 17 of 214 licensed custodians do; the remaining 197 keep the two apart. That is the single ranking criterion this page offers, because it is the only one the register proves.

Why it matters: when the same entity holds the assets and runs the venue they trade on, no outside party checks the balance. Both models are legal under MiCA and both are in use. The register states which is which; the judgement is yours.

Licensed for both, custody and a trading venue

• LUBitstamp
• NLBitvavo B.V.
• CZCOINMATE a.s.
• NOFIRI AS
• MTGate
• CZMP Developers s.r.o.
• NONBX
• MTOKX
• NLOne Trading Exchange B.V.
• FRPAYMIUM
• CYPM MTF LTD
• CYRevolut
• LIRULEMATCH
• LVAlphaRoute
• LISMART VALOR
• NLzerohash europe
• MTZBX

What institutional custody costs

Custodians negotiate per mandate and publish no price lists. What is public is the structure of the fee and a few disclosed figures. Everything below is sourced from industry publications, not confirmed by the providers, and should be read as an order of magnitude rather than a quote.

Beyond the headline rate, four items decide the real cost: network fees passed through, staking commission, withdrawal charges, and whether reporting and audit support are included or billed separately.

What this edition cannot do yet

• Per-provider fees are missing and will probably stay missing: custodians negotiate per mandate. What is verifiable is licence, services, domicile and supervision.
• Custody model, insurance and audit evidence are not yet in the data. They come only from the providers themselves and are not public for every firm. Where that is the case, the entry will read “not disclosed”, not blank.
• The role assignment is editorial and set for the curated entries only. For the rest, the table shows what the register says and nothing beyond it.
• A missing register entry does not mean unregulated. These firms are supervised elsewhere, by the OCC, FINMA, the SFC or under existing German permissions.