The short answer
DeFi is a description of technology or an operating model, not a complete legal scope assessment. Explain what the actual company does, who controls the service and how the company receives revenue. MiCA’s treatment of services without an intermediary should not be reduced to a blanket DeFi exemption. [EUR-Lex]
Source-linked facts below are distinct from our suggested workflows. Examples are hypothetical; this is not individual legal, tax or investment advice.
- 01Entity
- 02Control
- 03Revenue
- 04Fiat route
Start with the company, not the protocol
A protocol, foundation, software developer and operating company may be different things. Identify the applicant entity, its owners, decision-makers and contractual revenue. Explain whether it develops software, operates an interface, executes transactions, holds customer assets or performs another activity.
Use a legal-entity map with a separate column for technical control. Token voting, administrator keys, multisignature arrangements and commercial contracts may allocate influence differently. A diagram labelled decentralised is not an answer to who can change the product or instruct a treasury transfer. [EUR-Lex]
Describe revenue in ordinary accounting terms
Separate software fees, grants, token sales, trading proceeds, liquidity-related returns and intercompany transfers. For each material source, explain the transaction that creates the entitlement, the payer or mechanism and the records retained. Do not treat every incoming token as operating revenue without an accounting assessment.
A useful sample follows one receipt from its origin to the wallet, conversion and bank statement. If multiple contracts or wallets are involved, explain the link. An unexplained bridge or protocol interaction is a gap to document, not an invitation to fabricate a conventional customer invoice.
Show who can control the assets
Maintain a wallet inventory with entity ownership, intended purpose, network and signing policy. Explain access changes, emergency procedures and the separation of duties in terms a financial reviewer can understand. Do not attach recovery phrases or secret keys to an onboarding file.
Where a provider asks for proof of control, use its supported process without compromising asset security. Control evidence is not the same as source-of-funds evidence. The EU transfer-information regime includes specific treatment for self-hosted addresses involving a CASP, and those requirements must be assessed for the route. [EUR-Lex] [EBA]
Make the scope assessment explicit
Review the actual activities against MiCA and other relevant regimes with qualified advisers. The fact that some interactions occur through a smart contract does not settle who is providing a service. Conversely, owning tokens or publishing software is not automatically equivalent to providing all regulated crypto services. [EUR-Lex]
Retain the rationale, assumptions and date of the assessment. A change in custody, user interface, fees, governance or client geography can make an old analysis unsuitable. The account application should describe the current business, not the version originally imagined in a white paper.
Map conversion and banking counterparties
Identify the legal entity that will execute the conversion and the legal entity receiving the euro payment. Verify their roles separately and ask for written confirmation of the proposed flow’s eligibility. The ESMA register is a starting point for MiCA permission checks, not a list of guaranteed banking partners. [ESMA]
Where the bank sees an omnibus or third-party sender, prepare the records linking that sender to the company’s conversion. Record expected volumes, currencies and timing as forecasts, not promises. Keep significant changes visible so that periodic review does not reveal an unexplained difference from the onboarding file.
Maintain a reviewer-friendly evidence index
Organise the file by question: identity, activity, control, revenue, counterparties and expected flow. Each answer should point to a record and identify its limitations. A concise narrative can sit above technical appendices; neither a hundred-page protocol explanation nor a single marketing sentence is sufficient on its own.
The goal is intelligibility, not a favourable score. The bank may still decline the activity. EBA guidance on de-risking supports attention to individual profiles, but it does not require a specific institution to provide a particular service to every DeFi-related company. [EBA]
Working checklist
Ticks record your work, not an approval or compliance score. Progress stays in this browser where storage is available.
Method, assumptions and limits
Regulatory facts are linked to primary sources. Suggested workflows are our editorial synthesis; examples and fee scenarios are hypothetical. The mechanical illustration is a conceptual navigation aid, not a prescribed legal funds flow.
This is a dated research edition, not an automatically updated register or live price feed. Check the applicable entity, service, jurisdiction and source version before using the material.
Read the methodologyQAnswers
Questions before you set out.
01Is DeFi automatically outside MiCA?
No blanket conclusion is appropriate. Assess the actual services, intermediary roles and legal scope.
02Is a wallet signature the full evidence file?
No. It may address control in a particular process but does not explain the commercial origin of the assets.
03Can a protocol name replace the applicant entity?
No. Identify the legal applicant and explain its relationship to the protocol.
04Can The Fiat Atlas guarantee acceptance?
No. It is an informational project and does not make onboarding decisions.
Sources & scope
Research snapshot: 12 November 2026. The dated rule, its scope and the legal entity matter. Open the primary source before acting.
- EUR-Lex: Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 — Markets in Crypto-AssetsEU legislation
- ESMA: MiCA implementation and the central registerRegulator register and guidance
- EUR-Lex: Regulation (EU) 2023/1113 — information accompanying transfersEU legislation
- EBA: Travel Rule Guidelines — information accompanying transfersRegulator guidance
- EBA: Guidelines challenging unwarranted de-riskingRegulator guidance