EU’s MiCA Framework Drives Banks to Integrate Crypto Services

Regulated financial institutions are increasingly exploring the integration of cryptocurrency services into their platforms, driven by the EU’s Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) framework, which provides legal clarity for crypto services. Stablecoins like USDC are being utilized for payments, settlements, and cross-border operations, while tokenized assets are being tested by banks and asset managers. This shift is prompting banks, brokers, and fintech platforms to plan the launch of crypto services, including custody, trading, and stablecoin rails.

However, these companies operate under strict regulatory environments and require infrastructure that meets high standards for uptime, access control, compliance, and reporting. A simple API or SDK is insufficient; what they need is a comprehensive infrastructure strategy. The reasons for this move into crypto include the legal clarity provided by MiCA, the growing use of stablecoins for fast payments, client demand for crypto products, and institutional interest in tokenized assets. Unlike startups, regulated firms need long-term infrastructure that can handle audits, reporting, and operations at scale.

Regulated companies typically begin their crypto journey by focusing on one or two specific services, depending on their market and compliance readiness. One common starting point is custody, where firms focus on secure wallet infrastructure to enable users to deposit and withdraw assets safely. This creates a foundation for other services, such as staking or tokenized investments. Some companies prioritize trading access, allowing users to buy and sell cryptocurrencies without handling custody, thereby limiting exposure to custody-related risks. Another growing use case is stablecoin integration, where payment firms use assets like USDC or EURC to provide faster and more cost-effective alternatives to traditional rails. Others enter crypto through tokenized asset offerings, experimenting with digital versions of bonds or private equity instruments.

Each approach requires a tailored infrastructure stack and a different level of compliance maturity. However, all of them depend on having reliable custody, transaction logic, and audit controls from the beginning. When a regulated company adds crypto to its platform, the infrastructure must meet the same operational and legal standards as any other financial system. Custody systems should be built on secure methods like MPC or HSM, with fine-grained control over who can initiate and approve transactions. Access needs to be managed by role, with multi-level approvals and detailed permissions. Logging and audit trails must be available in real time, with every transaction, user action, or system change tracked and stored securely. Uptime is also critical, requiring redundancy, health checks, and fallback systems to minimize service interruptions.

Beyond the backend, companies need tools for real-time monitoring. Dashboards that track delays, performance, or anomalies help operations teams respond quickly. Transparency is essential when working with infrastructure vendors, as regulated companies need visibility into how the platform works, its performance history, and how it supports ongoing compliance. Compliance is a technical requirement, with many crypto compliance rules enforced through software. Regulated companies must understand the infrastructure requirements behind these rules, including the Travel Rule, MiCA enforcement, and regional requirements. At Scalable Solutions, compliance is built into the platform, with features like transaction screening, withdrawal checks, and audit logs being part of the standard architecture.

Companies that want to offer crypto services need to decide which parts of the infrastructure they will build themselves and which parts they will source from vendors. It makes sense to keep control over the user interface, onboarding experience, internal dashboards, and risk or compliance rules specific to their business. Core infrastructure such as key custody, blockchain node access, transaction screening, and monitoring tools can be more efficient and secure when provided by specialized vendors. The key is to work with providers who offer transparency, regulatory readiness, and clear service-level commitments. Systems that don’t provide access to logs, lack proper client separation, or operate as black boxes can create serious operational and compliance risks.

When choosing a vendor, companies should avoid platforms that don’t share logs or audit data, use shared infrastructure without strong isolation, have no proof of regulatory readiness, or can’t meet SLA and uptime requirements. Lessons from the field show that a European broker launched a crypto service using a basic white-label backend, which failed due to lack of proper role separation and inability to provide logs to regulators. In contrast, a payment platform successfully added USDC payouts using vendor-based custody and compliance modules, keeping control over AML policy logic and using modular infrastructure. The service launched quickly and passed a regulatory audit within six months.

In conclusion, for regulated companies, crypto is no longer out of reach. However, it must be added with the same care as any other financial service. The infrastructure must support controlled key management, transaction screening, role-based access, logging and audit tools, and regional deployment strategies—all in one, simply manageable source.