CASP Own Funds Under MiCA Article 67 — The Calculation

The two-number rule

MiCA Article 67 imposes a continuous own-funds requirement on every authorised CASP. The rule has two reference values and a tie-breaker:

• Static floor. A permanent minimum capital figure tied to the CASP’s service class, set in MiCA Annex IV: EUR 50,000 for Class 1 (advisory and execution), EUR 125,000 for Class 2 (custody, exchange, transfer), and EUR 150,000 for Class 3 (operating a trading platform).
• Dynamic floor. One-quarter of the previous year’s fixed overheads expenditure, calculated under the methodology in Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/305.
• Tie-breaker. The CASP must hold the higher of the two. The other becomes irrelevant for that year.

For a first-year CASP without a full year of operating expenses, the static floor is the live constraint. By the time of the first audited annual accounts, the dynamic floor typically crosses the static. From that point onwards the calculation drives the requirement.

What counts as “fixed overheads”

Regulation (EU) 2025/305 specifies the methodology. The starting point is total expenses from the audited annual accounts prepared under IFRS or national GAAP. From that, the CASP deducts:

• Variable remuneration — performance bonuses, profit-sharing payments
• Employee discretionary commissions tied to revenue
• Fees, brokerage, and commissions paid that vary with transaction volume
• Depreciation of intangible assets
• Variable expenses related to investment in subsidiaries
• Non-recurring expenses from non-ordinary activities (extraordinary items)

What remains is the fixed overheads figure. Multiply by 0.25, and that’s the dynamic floor.

The methodology mirrors the CRR Article 13 fixed-overheads requirement for investment firms but with MiCA-specific items added — most notably the treatment of crypto-asset network fees the CASP passes through to clients (deductible) versus internal node-operation costs (not deductible).

Composition: CET1, not generic cash

Article 67 specifies that the own funds must be Common Equity Tier 1 capital as defined in CRR Article 26. The high-level effect is that share capital and retained earnings count, while subordinated debt, hybrid instruments, and (for most CASPs) unrealised gains do not.

The CRR deductions apply by reference. The two that matter most for early-stage CASPs:

• Goodwill and other intangibles. Capitalised platform-development costs, trademarks, customer lists — all deducted from CET1.
• Deferred tax assets that rely on future profitability. A first-year CASP often has tax-loss carry-forwards on the balance sheet; the portion that depends on future taxable profit is deducted.

Many CASPs find their CET1 figure 20-40% lower than their accounting equity once these deductions are applied. Modelling the deductions upfront, rather than discovering them at the first supervisory review, is part of the prudential planning.

The insurance substitution

Article 67(5) allows the CASP to replace up to 100% of the minimum with an insurance policy. The conditions:

• The policy covers professional negligence, fraud, fiduciary breach, and specified operational risks
• The insurer holds a credit rating of at least A- from a recognised rating agency
• The policy term is at least 12 months with automatic renewal
• The policy is uncancellable by the insurer mid-term other than for non-payment

In 2026 the MiCA-eligible insurance market is thin. A handful of London-market underwriters offer compliant policies; premiums run 80-150 bps of the covered amount per year. For most CASPs the calculation is straightforward — at a 100 bps premium, replacing EUR 1 million of own funds costs EUR 10,000 per year. Holding EUR 1 million in cash at 3% interest produces EUR 30,000. The cash dominates.

The insurance route only makes sense for CASPs that are capital-constrained for separate reasons — venture-backed start-ups burning cash where every euro of unused balance-sheet matters, or platforms with strong commercial reasons to deploy the cash elsewhere.

Continuous compliance and the supervisor’s response to a breach

Article 67 is not an annual test. It is a continuous requirement — the CASP must hold the calculated amount at all times. Supervisors expect monthly internal calculation and quarterly board sign-off on the prudential position.

If the dynamic floor jumps year-on-year — which it routinely does for growing CASPs — the CASP must hold the higher amount from the date the prior-year accounts are finalised. National supervisors generally allow a 30-day grace period for the capital top-up. Continued shortfall triggers a remediation notice; persistent breach is a basis for authorisation withdrawal under MiCA Article 64.

The buyer’s view

For a buyer planning the operating budget on a multi-year horizon, the practical implications are three:

1. Year 1 capital ≠ steady-state capital. Budget for the static floor at authorisation but model the dynamic floor for Year 2 and beyond. A Class 3 platform with EUR 4 million projected fixed costs needs EUR 1 million on the balance sheet by the time the Year 1 accounts close.
2. Hire-up cycles drive capital cycles. Adding 20 people to the compliance and engineering teams adds roughly EUR 2 million to fixed overheads at fully-loaded cost — that’s EUR 500,000 of additional capital required.
3. The insurance substitution rarely beats holding cash. Useful as a stop-gap during fundraising, not as a permanent capital strategy.

The prudential calculation does not get the airtime in MiCA discussions that the white paper or marketing rules attract, but it is the constraint that bites first when a CASP scales.