The future of crypto licensing: Insights from SBSB FinTech Lawyers CEO Ivan Nevzorov

Fintech and crypto regulations are tightening worldwide, and few experts understand this shift better than Ivan Nevzorov, Acting CEO of SBSB FinTech Lawyers.

The regulatory climate for fintech and crypto is growing more turbulent each year, and businesses expanding across borders now face stricter licensing, compliance, and operational requirements than ever before. Few legal experts understand this shift as well as Ivan Nevzorov, the Acting CEO of SBSB FinTech Lawyers.

An expert in international law with over a decade of experience, Ivan specializes not only in launching Fintech and crypto projects but also in maintaining their long-term operational compliance. Before leading the firm, he served as Head of the Fintech Department, where he and his team successfully obtained over 50 crypto licenses  across major jurisdictions, including Italy, Lithuania, Estonia, Poland, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Singapore, and Canada. Today, Ivan helps web3 businesses navigate the complex regulatory landscape, from banking solutions to MiCA compliance.

Here’s our conversation with Ivan about how crypto businesses can stay compliant and scale in a fast-moving global market.

What do you believe are the most attractive countries for starting a crypto business today; what makes them stand out?

When it comes to choosing a jurisdiction for registering a crypto company, crypto exchange, crypto exchanger, or any other cryptocurrency business, the choice largely depends on the business goals.

For stable, large-scale businesses, it is typically preferable to choose prestigious and stable jurisdictions with clear regulation, where one can predict what to expect from regulators in the future. These companies often work with investment capital, receiving funding from venture funds or business angels who focus on jurisdictions with transparent rules, stable tax regimes, and clear regulatory structures. This includes countries such as the USA, Switzerland, and Europe in general. For crypto investors from Latin America, Brazil and Argentina may also be attractive. In Asia, Japan, South Korea, and other countries in the region are popular.

For a startup that wants to test its business model, the most important factor is usually the launch budget. In such cases, startups are willing to accept a certain level of uncertainty in regulatory matters, realizing that the legislation may change in the future.

To register a business in such situations, countries with flexible tax and legal regimes are often chosen, such as Panama, Costa Rica, El Salvador, and Argentina. Sometimes, Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as South Africa, are considered as alternatives, these countries are popular for creating startups due to favorable conditions and growth opportunities.

Can you explain the advantages and challenges of operating in countries like Panama, Bosnia and Herzegovina, or El Salvador for crypto startups?

Panama, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and El Salvador are popular jurisdictions for crypto startups, and this is no coincidence. These countries attract businesses for several reasons.

Firstly, it’s the speed of setup. In these countries, startups can register their business and start operations in less than six months, which is significantly faster than in larger and more complex jurisdictions like the USA or European countries.

Secondly, there are low costs. Registering a business in these countries is much cheaper than in more developed jurisdictions, making them attractive for startups with limited budgets.

Thirdly, there’s a favorable regulatory environment. In these countries, the approach is that anything not explicitly prohibited is allowed. This enables startups to operate with less regulatory oversight, giving them more flexibility to test their business models. Many crypto companies can operate in these countries without the need to meet stringent requirements like licensing or strict controls, which are often present in more prestigious jurisdictions.

However, there are some challenges as well. For instance, these jurisdictions may not be as attractive to large investors who prefer more stable and regulated markets. Also, despite the favorable regulatory environment, there is a risk in the long term if these countries decide to tighten their stance on cryptocurrencies.

Therefore, crypto startups choose these countries for their favorable conditions for a quick launch, affordable costs, and regulatory flexibility, but they must consider potential risks in the future.

Globally, crypto regulations are changing at lightning speed. How can startups keep up and ensure ongoing compliance after obtaining licenses?

Indeed, cryptocurrency regulation is changing rapidly, with new requirements emerging every day, not only in the area of licensing but also regarding AML processes, quality assurance (QA/QC), regulatory policies, crypto custody, technical infrastructure security, and data privacy.

For startups, this means the need for constant monitoring and adaptation to these changes. It’s crucial to have a lawyer in the team or an external legal firm that will stay updated on new developments and provide timely recommendations. Unfortunately, regulators rarely inform companies about new requirements, and penalties are often imposed even for minor violations.

In such conditions, it is often cheaper and safer to have an in-house lawyer or enter into an agreement with a law firm for ongoing support, rather than risk fines and reputational damage. In some cases, startups may even need to change jurisdictions, which has become a common practice among companies seeking to comply with new regulations.

Ultimately, regular monitoring of regulatory changes and the ability to adapt quickly are key factors for successfully meeting all requirements and preventing risks.

The GENIUS Act in the US is setting federal rules for stablecoins, while in Hong Kong, licensing regime for stablecoin issuers went live this year. What regulatory trends do you see in the crypto space for the coming year?

Regulators in most countries are implementing their own regulations based on market trends. As a result, stablecoins are currently experiencing a boom. Their development and growing popularity are rapid and attract significant attention.

I believe that in 2026, one of the key trends will be the development of legislation regarding stablecoins and the differentiation between them and payment tokens. This will lead to numerous disputes about when a project must obtain a payment license and when it can remain within the framework of cryptocurrency regulation. The issue of distinguishing between payment licenses and crypto licenses will become increasingly relevant and contentious each year.

The second trend in 2026, in my opinion, will be the development of RWA (Real World Assets). Currently, many countries lack clear regulations for RWA tokens, which significantly slows their development and market adoption.

There are already many lobbyists working actively to promote legislation in this area. As a result, RWA will also become one of the key trends between 2025 and 2026.

The third trend will be the tightening of crypto transaction monitoring and the fight against “black” cryptocurrency. This refers to checking whether cryptocurrency is linked to sanction lists or whether it is the result of illegal activities. This will be one of the most important trends in 2026, and we will need to actively accelerate efforts in this direction.

Additionally, classic issues that remain unresolved in most countries are still highly relevant. For example, how should DeFi projects be structured, especially when they intersect with investment assets? How should security tokens be classified and regulated under existing legislation? Should they be treated the same as traditional securities, or is there a new model? These issues will remain important and become one of the key legal trends of 2026.

In your opinion, how will the MiCA Regulation change the crypto landscape in Europe?

MiCA regulation is one of the most progressive in the world today. The thorough and comprehensive nature of the processes and principles that crypto companies must follow will have a significant impact on the future development of the industry.

The in-depth analysis conducted by regulators in this market will lead, first and foremost, to the “cleaning” of companies in the European market. For example, more than 2,000 cryptocurrency companies (VASP) were registered in the Czech Republic, but only 250 applications were submitted under MiCA. According to my forecasts, only 20-30% of these projects will receive MiCA licenses. This means that from the 2,000 VASP companies in the Czech Republic, only about 50 licensed CASPs will remain. This is, of course, an optimistic forecast, but it likely reflects the actual state of the market.

This will lead to market monopolization, as only large companies will be able to meet all MiCA requirements, both technical and financial. As a result, we may see a trend towards consolidation, where smaller companies will be forced to cooperate with other players in order to meet the new standards. At the same time, large companies, such as exchanges like Kraken, Bybit, and others, which already have an established customer base, will be able to more easily obtain a MiCA license and continue their operations in the market. Smaller companies will find it significantly more difficult to enter the MiCA market than before, which, in turn, limits their growth and expansion opportunities.

For Europeans, MiCA will primarily serve as a protection of funds, providing certain technical and financial guarantees. All of these measures together will make cryptocurrency investors in Europe more protected. However, it is important to note that this is not only about protecting investors’ interests but also about other companies that will use the services of licensed MiCA companies. This will create a safer and more transparent ecosystem, where high standards of regulation and data protection are maintained.

As a leading international law firm, how do you help startups assess factors like regulatory burden, banking solutions, and capital requirements when choosing a jurisdiction to operate in?

When choosing a jurisdiction for a startup, it is important to consider several key factors: the regulatory burden, the choice of banking partners with whom the startup will be able to work after registration, as well as the requirements for share capital and the government fee that will need to be paid to the regulator for obtaining a license.

It is also crucial to take into account the norms and rules to which the startup will be subject in the chosen jurisdiction. This helps answer the question of whether the jurisdiction aligns with the startup’s need for flexibility. Will it support a startup that is still in the process of finding its business model, and will it provide enough freedom to test and adapt that model?

For startups that are still in the process of shaping their business model, regulatory flexibility can become a key factor in choosing a jurisdiction.

Regulatory flexibility is often a challenge for larger, prestigious jurisdictions, which impose a heavy regulatory burden on startups.

As a law firm, we carefully analyze a startup’s goals when launching. Regulatory flexibility often means weaker banking partners.

If the client values working with large banks and safeguarding funds, we would likely recommend a more prestigious jurisdiction with higher capital requirements and regulatory fees. However, if the startup needs greater flexibility, then more lenient and budget-friendly, but less prestigious jurisdictions may be a better fit.

You’re a big name in the fintech and crypto legal space in Europe. Have you assisted any projects with MiCA licensing?

Yes, we have assisted with obtaining MiCA licenses in the Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Italy, Slovakia, and Malta. Currently, we are preparing to submit a MiCA license application for Poland after the relevant law is passed.

Can you elaborate? Which countries have you worked in, and what has that experience been like in each jurisdiction?

We are a law firm operating in over 92 countries. This means we have specialists working in each of these jurisdictions. Among the most popular crypto jurisdictions are El Salvador, Bosnia and Herzegovina, European countries, Costa Rica, Panama, South Africa, Singapore, and Canada.

Each jurisdiction has its own unique features that may be advantageous for company registration depending on the client’s goals. It is important to approach the choice of jurisdiction individually, based on what the client is looking for and the tasks they aim to accomplish. We assist with jurisdiction selection for free, typically within 30 minutes. Simply contact us, and we will discuss all the details.