Polish President Karol Nawrocki has vetoed a sweeping bill aimed at regulating the country’s crypto-asset market, a decision that has drawn applause from digital-asset advocates and ire from government officials.
The Crypto-Asset Market Act, introduced in June and passed by parliament earlier this month, would have imposed stricter licensing, monitoring, and enforcement tools on firms operating in Poland’s fast-growing digital-asset sector.
In a statement released Monday, the president’s press office said Nawrocki rejected the bill because its provisions “genuinely threaten the freedoms of Poles, their property, and the stability of the state.”
His office argued that several sections of the legislation granted excessive authority to financial regulators, including the power to block access to crypto platforms and seize digital assets without sufficient judicial oversight.
Supporters of the veto say the law, although intended to protect consumers and align Poland more closely with EU standards, risked suffocating innovation and pushing crypto entrepreneurs to friendlier jurisdictions.
Industry advocates, including outspoken politician Tomasz Mentzen, had warned for weeks that the legislation was overly restrictive. Mentzen and other critics anticipated the veto as the bill advanced through parliament, calling it a necessary defense of economic freedom.
The government, however, sharply criticized the decision. Ministers who backed the proposal insisted Poland needs clearer rules to address fraud, money laundering, and market manipulation in the digital-asset space.
They argue the veto leaves the country behind its European neighbors just as the EU’s Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) framework begins taking shape.
The veto sets up a renewed political fight in Warsaw. Lawmakers must now decide whether to attempt an override, revise the bill’s most controversial provisions, or start from scratch.
For now, the move underscores the wider global divide over how far governments should go in policing crypto markets, and whether tough regulation protects consumers or stifles innovation.