The failure of MiCA implementation in Poland exposes gaps in the state’s strategy toward digital money.

Yesterday, President Nawrocki vetoed the law introducing regulations for the crypto market.

Media messages on this matter from the president focused on emphasizing the limitation of citizens’ freedom, overregulation, and the restriction of innovation.

Messages from the government pointed to the risk of fraud, lack of protection for investors, and threats to national security related to the lack of control over the flow of money.

Although MiCA concerns the regulation of crypto assets, meaning the financial market, its significance is much broader because it is a milestone toward the creation of a new financial system based on the transfer of value and digital scarcity. This new financial system is not being created in isolation from geopolitics – on the contrary, it is an integral part of the struggle for dominance in global trade and financial flows. The United States has a clear strategy in this direction, and any discussion about global politics inevitably turns to the topic of sanctions (i.e., control of payment systems), dollar dominance (i.e., the ability to finance the USA), recycling of trade surpluses (i.e., allocation of currency reserves), and control of key resources (including digital ones).

Unfortunately, the debate taking place in Poland around crypto reduces the issue to the problem of dishonest brokers or investors – a topic important in itself, but not strategic. It is obvious that fraudsters must be eradicated – both in the crypto market and in the traditional market, there is no doubt about that. But it is also obvious that super-strict regulation of this market will only deepen the problem that already exists in Poland; professionals will not have the motivation to risk their reputation by experimenting with any innovations on the blockchain, especially given the lack of monetization opportunities, while amateurs and people who are not concerned with their reputation (let’s put it that way) and the ethics of their actions will find a way to operate anyway.

Most tokens have no value, and educating the public on this topic will have a better effect than restrictive regulations.

Enabling monetization is necessary for the development of digital finance. The development of digital finance is necessary to strengthen the geopolitical aspirations of the state. Donald Trump knows this and speaks about it loudly. Why is this debate not taking place in Poland, and why are we instead focusing on the tenth decimal place? For those who do not think about global finance on a daily basis and do not see the connection between crypto and the fight for a place in the new world order, I propose a short list of questions to consider:

Why does the USA pay coupons on issued debt, which is considered risk-free, while institutional investors are willing to pay for the diversification attribute by buying other assets that do not pay a coupon (for example, in the case of Bitcoin)?

Why do the coupons from US debt, which serve as collateral for USD stablecoins, go into the pockets of the stablecoin issuer, even though they add no value? Can’t the USA issue a stablecoin itself and obtain financing at 0%?

Why doesn’t the Polish state use stablecoins for financing?

I have the impression that our political class underestimates the potential that exists in the development of national Blockchain infrastructure. We have repeatedly discussed this at Cyferium, pointing out that Poland has a certain advantage here (though it is rapidly diminishing) because we already have a digital identity, and combining it in a tokenised form with digital money is an entirely new quality on a global scale (albeit not without risk).

Perhaps yesterday’s fiasco with the crypto resolution is a moment when we should all take a deeper breath and think about the 'bigger picture.’ An unregulated market is just as bad as an overregulated one. Unfortunately, nobody won yesterday’s clash.