Polish lawmakers have reintroduced a comprehensive cryptocurrency regulation bill that was previously rejected by President Karol Nawrocki, escalating political friction between the president and Prime Minister Donald Tusk.
Polska2050, a component of the ruling coalition in Poland's Sejm (lower house of parliament), submitted the extensive crypto bill again on Tuesday. This action follows President Nawrocki's veto of an identical bill just days prior.
Supporters of the bill, including Adam Gomoła, a member of Polska2050, have referred to the new bill, designated as Bill 2050, as an "improved" version of the previously vetoed Bill 1424. However, government spokesman Adam Szłapka was reported to have stated that "not even a comma" had been altered in the new draft.
This divergence of opinion on Poland's crypto legislation occurs concurrently with the phased implementation of the European Union's Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA) across member states. Crypto businesses within the EU are working towards a compliance deadline set for July 2026.
Critics Assert Bill 2050 Mirrors the Vetoed Legislation
The resubmitted version of Poland's draft crypto bill is an 84-page document that largely replicates the original Bill 1424. Its primary objective is to establish the Polish Financial Supervision Authority as the nation's principal regulator for the crypto asset market.
Prominent figures in the crypto advocacy community, such as Polish politician Tomasz Mentzen, had previously voiced criticism of Bill 1424, describing it as "118 pages of overregulation." Mentzen specifically contrasted it with less extensive crypto legislation in other EU member states, citing Hungary and Romania as examples.
In an X post on Tuesday, Mentzen stated, "The government has once again adopted exactly the same bill on cryptoassets."
Mentzen also addressed Prime Minister Tusk's assertion that the president's prior veto was linked to alleged ties with the "Russian mafia." Mentzen sarcastically remarked, "The bill is perfect, and anyone who thinks otherwise is funded by Putin."
Government spokesman Szłapka reportedly indicated that President Nawrocki is unlikely to veto the proposed bill this time. This prediction follows a classified security briefing held in parliament last week, after which Szłapka claimed the president "now has full knowledge" of the national security implications.
Debate Over MiCA: Local vs. Centralized EU Oversight
Poland's internal debate concerning its crypto bill serves as a significant precedent for the broader implementation of the EU-wide MiCA regulation. The proposed Polish legislation aims to place the responsibility for market supervision on the national financial regulator.
This issue is particularly pertinent given the ongoing discussions among some member states advocating for more centralized MiCA supervision, potentially under the authority of the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), which is based in Paris.
In October, the Bank of France formally requested the EU to grant ESMA direct supervisory powers. The bank cautioned that a fragmented approach to oversight could potentially undermine the financial sovereignty of the European bloc.
Conversely, certain EU member states have expressed reservations about centralized oversight under MiCA. Regulators in Malta, for instance, have argued that such a structure could introduce additional layers of supervision that might hinder market innovation.
Economist Krzysztof Piech, a vocal critic of Poland's proposed crypto bill, has questioned the necessity of the local legislation. He pointed out that MiCA protections are scheduled to become effective in 2026, suggesting that a rush to implement national laws might be premature.
While local reports suggest that President Nawrocki might not veto the bill this time, there is also speculation that his office has been presented with an alternative draft. This proposed alternative reportedly aims to foster more favorable market conditions and is designed to align with the EU-wide MiCA framework, while also removing direct oversight from the local regulator.