Poland Crypto Bill Vetoed as President Nawrocki Cites Freedom Risks

• Nawrocki vetoes Poland’s Crypto-Asset Market Act, citing threats to freedoms and stability.
• Veto targets site-blocking powers, complex rules, and fees seen as hostile to startups.
• Officials warn of investor losses, advocates cite MiCA protections arriving July 1, 2026.

Poland’s President Karol Nawrocki vetoed the Crypto-Asset Market Act after weeks of debate. His office announced the decision on Monday. The bill sought strict controls on crypto activity and was introduced in June. The move drew support from many crypto advocates. It also triggered strong criticism from several government officials who had pushed for tighter rules and faster oversight.

Nawrocki said the act posed risks to the freedoms of Poles. He said it also threatened property rights and the stability of the state. His office said those concerns justified the veto. The bill had already passed through parliament before reaching his desk.

Early Warnings and Key Objections to the Crypto Bill

Industry figures had warned about the bill since its introduction. Polish politician Tomasz Mentzen argued it created heavy obligations. He expected the president to reject it once it cleared the legislature. Crypto supporters called the veto a positive step for the market.

One major issue involved a provision that allowed authorities to block websites tied to crypto activity. The president’s office said the measure lacked clear safeguards, warning that domain blocking could be opaque and easily broadened beyond its original intent.

Another point of objection was the length and complexity of the bill. The president’s office said the structure reduced transparency and that the bill’s size could lead to overregulation. It noted that other countries in the region, such as the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Hungary, use simpler approaches.

Nawrocki warned that heavy rules could drive firms out of Poland. He said companies may choose to relocate to nearby countries if requirements become too burdensome. He said such a movement would reduce tax revenue and economic activity. He also said it would weaken Poland’s position in the regional market.

He criticized the level of supervisory fees included in the bill. Nawrocki said the costs could block startup activity. He warned they could give an advantage to large foreign corporations and banks. Nawrocki described that outcome as a threat to innovation and competition in the crypto sector.

Government Backlash and Crypto Camp Pushback after the Veto

The veto sparked strong reactions from senior officials. Finance Minister Andrzej Domański said the president had chosen chaos. He said the president must take full responsibility for the consequences. 

Domański also said abuses in the market already affect investors. He claimed that 20% of clients are losing money because of these issues. He used the figure to argue for rapid regulation.

Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski echoed these warnings. He said the act aimed to create order in the crypto sector. He said a future market collapse could cause widespread losses. Sikorski noted that many Poles could suffer if prices fall and scams continue.

Sikorski’s comments on X targeted the political impact. He said people would remember who halted the bill if losses rise. His message framed the veto as a direct decision to delay consumer protection.

Related: SEC Chair Proposes Plan to Ease Crypto Regulations by December

Crypto advocates responded by disputing the claims. Polish economist Krzysztof Piech said the president cannot be responsible for failures to pursue scammers. He said enforcement agencies should focus on fraud cases. He argued that heavy restrictions could harm lawful businesses instead of improving safety.

Piech also pointed to European Union rules already scheduled for adoption. He said the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation would add investor protections across the EU. According to him, the regulation is set to apply from July 1, 2026.

The veto leaves the future of the bill uncertain. Lawmakers could revise the text and attempt to pass it again. They could also choose to abandon the measure. The debate now centers on whether Poland should pursue strict national rules soon or allow upcoming EU measures to guide future oversight.