Poland’s President, Karol Nawrocki, flatly refused to sign strict legislation on digital assets, arguing that it threatened civil liberties and economic stability. According to official statements, this presidential veto halts regulations that sought to impose severe government supervision on the market, unleashing an immediate political storm.
The mandatary justified his decision by pointing out that the bill’s provisions, such as opaque web domain blocking, could lead to authority abuses against citizens. Furthermore, he criticized the complexity of the legal text, ensuring that its lack of transparency would generate overregulation that is harmful compared to more efficient frameworks in neighboring countries. Therefore, he stated that the Crypto-Asset Market Act would incentivize capital flight to jurisdictions like Lithuania or Malta, instead of encouraging local tax payments.
Likewise, Nawrocki highlighted that the proposed supervisory fees were excessive, which would stifle small emerging startups while disproportionately favoring large foreign banks. Thus, he described the law as a strategic error, warning that killing a competitive market is a serious threat to the development of national technological innovation. The presidential office reiterated that creating fair operating conditions is vital to avoid expelling taxpayers from the Polish system.
Will Poland manage to balance investor security without destroying digital innovation?
This decision triggered an immediate and hostile reaction from top government officials, who accused the president of deliberately fostering financial disorder. Finance Minister Andrzej Domański warned that currently 20% of clients lose money due to market abuses, stating that the president has chosen chaos and will be responsible for future negative consequences. On the other hand, Minister Radosław Sikorski ironically suggested that citizens will know who to blame when financial bubbles burst and thousands of Poles lose their savings.
However, industry defenders and economists like Krzysztof Piech rejected these alarmist accusations, arguing that the executive should not blame the veto for its own inability to pursue scammers with current laws. Defenders of the cryptocurrencies sector maintain that the chaos narrative is exaggerated and celebrate the protection against unnecessary bureaucracy.
Finally, the Polish regulatory environment remains in uncertainty awaiting the European MiCA regulation, which will establish uniform protections for investors starting July 2026. The debate over the Crypto-Asset Market Act will continue to mark the agenda, forcing lawmakers to seek a consensus that protects users without sacrificing the country’s technological potential in the face of international competition.
