This article was first published in Bulgarian in Capital on 10 September 2026. This is an English summary.
MiCA settled whether global crypto firms need a European licence. The open question is where in Europe they will get it. That decision is being made now, and Bulgaria has a stronger case than it is making.
The same licence, at a different cost
MiCA turned running costs into a regulatory matter. A licensed provider cannot be a letterbox: it needs effective management in the member state, an office, local people in key roles, and permanent control functions. The requirements are the same in Paris, Valletta and Sofia. What differs is the price of meeting them, and that is where Bulgaria stands out: experienced teams cost several times less than in Western Europe, for the same European passport.
The tax framework supports the case, with 10% corporate tax and a 10% flat income tax. Joining the euro area on 1 January 2026 also removed currency friction around settlement and euro-denominated capital requirements.
The opening with Asian groups
With the transitional period over, a firm from Singapore, Hong Kong or Dubai has no legal route to European clients without a licensed EU subsidiary. These groups are building from scratch and paying the full cost of a presence, so they are especially sensitive to price. Some already find Bulgaria on their own, but nobody is presenting the offer to them in an organised way.
Banking is the weak link
New firms in this sector struggle to open even a basic payment account, and refusals rarely come with reasons. Many end up relying on alternative providers based elsewhere in Europe. The cause is inertia rather than law: banks have been slow to adapt their monitoring, so refusing remains the cheaper option.
The FATF grey list, in place since autumn 2023, added a second barrier, particularly for accounts at banks outside the EU.
Update, November 2026: since this article first appeared, the FATF has removed Bulgaria from the grey list, at its October 2026 plenary. That takes away the last major objection to the Bulgarian offer.
A hub has to say so
Malta did not become a hub because it had better rules; the rules are the same for everyone. It became one because the state decided it wanted this sector and said so publicly. Cyprus has also spent years deliberately attracting fintech and crypto business. Bulgaria's advantages exist despite the state's silence, not because of its policy.
None of the fix requires a new law:
- Use the grey list exit. Turn it into a clear message that Bulgaria's risk profile has changed.
- Agree a protocol between supervisors and banks. Give clear guidance on accounts for licence applicants, so that market entry depends on the regulator, not on the appetite of an individual bank branch.
- State the policy. Say at home and abroad that Bulgaria intends to develop this market.
The question was never whether Bulgaria can be a crypto hub. It is whether we will ask for it out loud before the clients choosing an address today have chosen one elsewhere.
Read the full article in Capital (in Bulgarian, subscription required).
This article is provided for general information and does not constitute legal advice. Sources cited were current as at the date of writing; readers should verify the latest position before relying on it.