Poland's Lower House Fails for the Third Time to Overturn President's Veto on Crypto Bill
The Polish parliament (lower house) voted in September and failed to overturn President Karol Nawrocki's veto of a regulatory bill on crypto assets, marking the third time the bill has been vetoed by the president and the third failure of the parliament to overturn it.
The result of this overturn vote was 241 in favor, 198 against, and 3 abstentions; according to the Polish Constitution, overturning a presidential veto requires a three-fifths majority of the 442 present members, which is 266 votes in support. This vote fell short of the threshold by 25 votes.
The bill was originally intended to designate the Polish Financial Supervision Authority (KNF) as the domestic regulatory body for crypto assets and to implement the EU's Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA) domestically; the bill had previously been vetoed twice, with the first veto on December 1, 2025, where the parliament's attempt to overturn it failed with 243 votes in favor and 192 against, and the second veto on February 12, 2026, where the parliament again failed to overturn it with 243 votes in favor, 191 against, and 3 abstentions. All three votes did not reach the 266-vote threshold.
Nawrocki publicly stated that the bill imposed "excessively restrictive" regulatory burdens on Polish crypto businesses, potentially forcing them to relocate to other jurisdictions, and noted that only 1 of the 16 proposed amendments by the parliament was adopted; he also remarked, "Bad laws will not become good laws no matter how many times they are voted on."
Polish Prime Minister Tusk criticized opposition members who voted against overturning the veto, calling their actions "shameful"; during the debate, Tusk also cited testimony from an investigation into the now-defunct crypto exchange Zondacrypto, suggesting that the testimony implicated former Polish Justice Minister Zbigniew Ziobro in corrupt dealings.
From an industry perspective, the transition period for the EU's MiCA regulation officially ended on July 1, 2026, meaning Poland is the only EU member state that has not completed domestic legislation for MiCA, and crypto asset service providers cannot obtain formal licensing in the country; in the absence of long-term domestic regulation, crypto exchanges and service providers operating in Poland will continue to face compliance uncertainty, and some businesses may be forced to seek licenses in neighboring countries like Lithuania and Estonia, which have completed MiCA implementation, and then provide services to the Polish market under the "EU passport" model. The flow of funds and licensing registrations is shifting from Poland to EU member states with more regulatory certainty; meanwhile, the Zondacrypto exchange collapse involved over $80 million in user losses, and the detention of Polish Olympic Committee President Radoslaw Piesiewicz on August 27 further amplified the market's trust crisis regarding the lack of regulation in Poland's domestic crypto industry.
Source: Public Information
ABAB AI Insight
Nawrocki, as the President of Poland, is not acting in isolation—he has previously used his presidential veto power multiple times to confront the ruling coalition of the Tusk government on key issues. The repeated vetoes of the crypto asset regulatory bill resemble the historical "executive versus legislative branch" struggles seen in multiple countries, such as the U.S. Congress's back-and-forth with various administrations over stablecoins and digital asset regulatory frameworks. What makes Poland's situation unique is that the veto power lies solely with the president, rather than being obstructed by a majority party in a Senate-like body.
From the perspective of capital and licensing flows, the "single passport" mechanism under the MiCA framework means that a crypto company only needs to obtain a license in any EU member state that has completed MiCA implementation (such as Lithuania, Estonia, or Malta) to provide services across the entire EU market, including Poland. The ongoing legislative impasse in Poland effectively pushes licensing applications, compliance team positions, and related tax revenues that could have remained in Poland toward neighboring countries with stronger regulatory certainty, resulting in a systematic outflow of capital (in the form of licensing registrations and compliance investments) from Poland.
This is quite similar to the path taken by many crypto companies relocating their EU business licenses to Ireland and Luxembourg after Brexit—where the lack of regulatory certainty acts as a form of "hidden tariff," driving capital and business registrations to more regulatory-friendly regions. Poland is currently in a phase of missing the "last piece of the puzzle" for the implementation of the EU MiCA unified regulatory framework, rather than being in the design or policy experimentation phase of the regulatory framework, which places it in an awkward position within the overall EU crypto regulatory landscape.
Essentially, this is a structural friction arising from the failure to realize "regulatory change"—mechanistically, the divergence between the president and the ruling coalition over how strict regulation should be (the president believes that excessive strictness will drive local businesses away, while the prime minister's side uses scandals like Zondacrypto to illustrate the risks of regulatory gaps) has led to Poland's inability to complete the "last mile" of legislation within the MiCA unified market. The unified regulatory benefits at the EU level (single passport, cross-border operations) should have flowed to Polish local businesses and regulatory bodies, but are now being intercepted by neighboring countries due to domestic political deadlock. This is a typical case of how internal political divisions among EU member states can directly translate into losses in industrial competitiveness.
ABAB News · Cognitive Law
The regulatory window period is the window period for neighboring country licenses.
The longer the legislative delay, the further capital runs.
In a single market, whoever completes compliance first gets the passport.