The Nordics look like a natural fit for the next phase of digital finance. The region is highly digitalized, largely cash-light, and home to some of Europe’s most trusted fintech infrastructure. But when it comes to crypto adoption, blockchain startups, and digital asset regulation, that advantage has not translated into fast mainstream growth.
In this interview, Jakob Hansen, CEO of the Nordic Blockchain Association, explains why. He shares why MiCA does not automatically create a level playing field across Europe, how licensing delays and compliance costs are shaping the Nordic crypto market, and why the region’s real opportunity may be less about speculative retail crypto and more about stablecoins, tokenization, trusted fintech infrastructure, and long-term blockchain adoption.
MiCA in the Nordics: Crypto Regulation, Licensing Delays, and Compliance Costs
MiCA is often described as creating a level playing field across Europe, but local supervisors still shape how the market works in practice. What could make the Nordics meaningfully different from the rest of Europe under the same rules?
That’s a really good question.
I can tell you what I hope, and then I can tell you the current reality and where we’re heading.
What we really hope in the Nordic region is that, of course, we are a little biased in how we look at it, but we have always seen ourselves as a place where transparency, trust, and regulation go hand in hand. Regulation has often been, I would say, a little harder to get. But once you get it, it should be bulletproof — or at least in theory — that you’re operating in a compliant way, which is exactly what you want if you’re building sustainable digital asset infrastructure. And I still think that’s where the Nordic region could stand out.
When it comes to MiCA, though, the reality is that local FSAs still set the direction. But you also need to take a step back and remember that above the FSA, there are departments, and above them, there is a political agenda.
For a long time, blockchain has been associated mainly with crypto and NFTs, which were often seen as harmful to consumers. So overall, I wouldn’t say there has been a very positive sentiment from a political point of view. And that has had a waterfall effect down to the FSA and then down to the teams working on these cases.
A very concrete example is Denmark, where we had huge issues. I don’t know the exact number, but I would say there were at least 50 cases we were aware of that had gone through the process and had been delayed. The FSA had missed deadlines. And purely because we prefer dialogue over lawsuits — unlike what might happen in the US — we stayed in close contact with them, including the head of the department and the team.
We actually facilitated a roundtable with the industry and the FSA on 14 April, so the dialogue has been good. But I would say they have only been operating at around 50% capacity because the necessary resources have not been prioritized.
On top of that, Denmark was chairing EU-level work and allocating resources there as well. So in practice, they simply didn’t have the capacity. That meant the MiCA application process dragged out, and a lot of companies concluded that it just wasn’t worth doing this in Denmark. Right now, there is only one native crypto company with a license.
So I think public sentiment toward digital assets, and the fact that many decision-makers still don’t fully recognize that digital financial infrastructure is coming no matter what, has led to poor prioritization. At the Nordic Blockchain Association, we created a legal steering committee with one lead from each country, and we’ve been mapping this closely through monthly meetings.
In general, the pattern seems clear: the FSAs have not had enough resources allocated to them, and digital asset regulation has not been high enough on the agenda. So unfortunately, we are way behind.
As I recall, around 160 companies have already received a MiCA license. That means many of them can passport across Europe. I know that in Sweden, only one company has a license — one of our members — but 57 companies are already passporting into Sweden.
So again, this is a good example of local supervisors moving too slowly. Companies get licensed in other member states, but they can still target the country. From a regulatory and supervisory point of view, the Nordics are unfortunately quite far behind, despite having a strong digital infrastructure and a high level of digital adoption in the public sector.
So we are not where we should be, and we really hope that changes. We are seeing more positive sentiment from authorities now, but it seems that the push has to come from a higher level.
Do you think the Nordics are on track to become a trust-premium market for digital assets, where credibility and compliance matter more than speed, or is there a real risk that the region simply becomes too slow and pushes innovation elsewhere?
There is definitely a real risk that the region becomes too slow and pushes innovation elsewhere.
At the same time, I do think the Nordic opportunity is to become a market where trust, compliance, and credibility matter. That should be our competitive edge in crypto regulation and digital asset services. The problem is that if the process becomes too slow, too expensive, and too uncertain, companies will simply go elsewhere, get licensed faster, and still target consumers in our markets.
So the trust-premium model only works if it doesn’t turn into bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy. If we can make compliance strong without making the process unworkable, then that becomes a real Nordic advantage. But right now, we are still too slow.
From your conversations with founders and operators, what is the bigger challenge right now: the cost of compliance itself, or the uncertainty and delays around getting licensed and becoming operational?
The biggest problem is the uncertainty and delays, because they have huge consequences.
The two main consequences are that it becomes extremely expensive and takes a very long time. For startups, this is just not really a path. Unless you already have a lot of money, it is hard to raise capital for compliance if there is no certainty around timing and no clarity on when you will actually be approved.
We have members who, unfortunately, went bankrupt because of this. They were told they would get a reply, then it got delayed, and that dragged on for close to a year. In the end, they had to file for bankruptcy. So the consequences are very real.
That uncertainty limits native founders from building strong crypto and blockchain companies in the region.
Then there is the second problem, which is not necessarily the supervisors’ fault: whenever new legislation is implemented, the cost of compliance is naturally high. There is no case law yet, and there are still open questions around how the regulation should be interpreted.
That means the cost of compliance and reporting is simply very high. This is one of the things we are focusing on with the local FSAs. We are saying: this is new for you, and it is new for us, so let’s talk and make sure we interpret it correctly.
Across Scandinavia, we can already see that regulators are interpreting MiCA differently. And some interpretations simply do not make sense. Whether it is about customer communication or other practical requirements, some of it clearly needs review if compliance costs are going to come down.
Our main point is that we really embrace regulatory clarity. We think it is extremely important for the digital asset market. But if it becomes too costly, companies will go abroad, get licensed somewhere cheaper and faster, face less uncertainty, and still target consumers in our region.
That is a lose-lose if we do not fix it.
If MiCA is supposed to legitimize the crypto industry, what would be the clearest sign that it is actually working in the Nordics: more licensed firms, more bank partnerships, more institutional activity, or something else?
I think there are three main things.
First, public sentiment from a political point of view. We have seen in other regions that when governments decide that digital assets and digital financial infrastructure matter, they create momentum and fast-track the right things. So public sentiment is extremely important.
Second, institutional activity. We are seeing huge interest from traditional finance. Banks are increasingly focused on stablecoins, and they now understand much better what stablecoins actually mean. Institutional adoption is a big signal.
Third, of course, the number of licenses. But I don’t think it is purely a numbers game. It is not about having as many licenses as possible. In the Nordics, we want quality over quantity. So the more important measure is the interaction between how long it takes to file and what the response time from the authorities looks like.
The number of licenses matters, but what we really want is a MiCA framework that works properly and predictably.
Crypto Adoption in the Nordics: Trust, Fintech Culture, and Why Retail Demand Looks Different
The Nordics are among the most digital and cash-light regions in the world, yet crypto still hasn’t become a mainstream retail habit in the same way it has in some other markets. Why hasn’t advanced fintech culture automatically translated into broad crypto adoption?
The answer is in the question itself. We are already highly digitalized, which also means we are extremely convenience-driven.
Even for me, the idea of managing 12 secret recovery words, keeping them safe, and handling all of that myself feels too complicated. Why should I do that when I already trust the banks and trust the system? We know that if something goes wrong, the bank will generally back us up.
Yes, bank fees are annoying. Yes, transfers can take a couple of days. But in the Nordic region, we have not had the same urgent need that people have had in other parts of the world.
I’ve spent a lot of time in Asia, Latin America, and Africa. In those markets, the use case is much more obvious. People want to send money across borders without losing a big part of it to FX fees. They want to move smaller amounts easily. That need is much more immediate.
In the Nordics, I think blockchain technology and crypto were overpromised early on. The industry talked a lot about what the technology could do, but when people looked at the real local use cases, the answer was often unclear. And that pushed adoption into a category dominated by NFTs, speculation, and financial gain.
At the same time, we forgot to explain the broader story. Crypto is only one part of blockchain. Blockchain is really about how data can be shared transparently, while still preserving privacy where needed.
I think that broader value proposition has largely been absent from the public debate. That is why the first wave of crypto adoption was mostly about investment. Stablecoins now feel different. I would not call them a ChatGPT moment for blockchain, but they are tangible. People can understand them.
If you look at the adoption numbers we published recently, Sweden nearly doubled — from around 7.5% to more than 13%. And I think that is because Sweden now has more structured products, which people understand. It is not the Wild West. There is more transparency, more reporting, and a more familiar financial framework.
In Denmark, we did not see high retail crypto adoption partly because private taxation is asymmetric, so it simply does not make sense for many people.
So I think things are changing now as legal infrastructure improves. MiCA has created space for more structured crypto and digital asset products, and that matters.
Do Nordic consumers simply have a higher bar for trusting new financial products, or is the real issue that crypto still hasn’t offered a compelling enough product for people who already have fast, cheap, reliable payments?
If you look at our survey numbers, in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden, more people under the age of 40 invest in crypto than in stocks. So in a sense, I think that already proves there is demand.
Of course, you can always ask whether adoption could be even broader. But I think the market has already shown that interest exists.
What becomes more important then is not whether people are willing to engage, but whether the industry has really demonstrated what blockchain can do from a broader social or economic point of view.
We still have not really delivered on the promises people were hearing 10 years ago. We talked about more transparency in supply chains, more transparency in decision-making, and even new ways of organizing companies through DAOs. But we have not truly seen those things arrive at scale.
So I think we should be positive about the fact that younger generations are already choosing crypto exposure. But yes, of course, usability and accessibility can still improve.
In Denmark, for example, people can buy structured financial products through existing systems and receive certain benefits. If we can bring crypto products into those kinds of frameworks, adoption will become much easier.
So I don’t think the market lacks readiness. I think the blockchain industry still needs to prove more clearly what the technology can do beyond investment and speculation.
What do international crypto companies still tend to misunderstand about the Nordic market when they try to expand into the region?
I think many international crypto companies still misunderstand what kind of market this really is.
The Nordics are not a natural market for high-volume, retail-driven, consumer trading businesses. It is not a tax-friendly environment for that model, and it does not really make sense to build for that use case here in the same way it might elsewhere.
Where the region is stronger is in enterprise technology, digital infrastructure, and more durable financial solutions.
So I think the mistake is trying to force a consumer trading model into a market that is better suited to trusted infrastructure, long-term financial products, and more institutional or enterprise-oriented use cases.
That is where the Nordic region has a better chance of building something globally relevant in blockchain and digital assets.
Stablecoins, Tokenization, and Digital Asset Infrastructure in the Nordic Market
If you had to point to one area where the Nordics are genuinely ahead of the global market in digital assets, and one area where they are clearly behind, what would those be?
If we take a broad view that includes fintech as well, the Nordics have a very strong track record. My numbers may be a little old, but as I recall, around 9% of global unicorns came from our region. So from a global perspective, we have been extremely strong in fintech innovation.
And if we step back from crypto and blockchain hype and look at the underlying technology, I am still very impressed by the strength of the research environment in the Nordics. We have strong universities, strong cryptographic knowledge, and strong technical talent.
So I would say we are ahead in terms of research, technical knowledge, and our broader fintech heritage.
Where we are clearly behind is in building blockchain-native startups and successful crypto companies out of the region. We simply do not have enough of them. It does not make sense that we do not have more successful founders building globally relevant blockchain companies from here.
The obvious explanation is regulation and public sentiment. But if that changes, then I think the region has a great opportunity, because blockchain is a horizontal technology. It can be used across many verticals. It can create transparency, privacy, and better ways of sharing data.
So we have the talent. We just need to create the right conditions to use it here.
In many markets, crypto adoption began with trading. In the Nordics, do you think the more important long-term story could be tokenized assets and financial infrastructure rather than speculative retail crypto?
Yes, I think that is very likely.
We have spent too much time talking only about crypto as a tradable asset and not enough time talking about the underlying infrastructure.
The Nordic opportunity is probably not to become the most aggressive retail crypto trading market. It is much more likely to be around tokenized assets, financial infrastructure, enterprise applications, and more trusted institutional rails.
That fits the region better. It fits our strengths better. And it is also where the long-term value in blockchain adoption is more likely to be built.
Stablecoins are often presented as a universal payment breakthrough, but Nordic consumers already have efficient payment rails. In this region, where do stablecoins actually solve a real problem?
I think the best way to explain it is through the analogy of rail systems with different gauges. You may have great rails locally, but if the rest of the world is moving onto a new system, then your local efficiency is not enough.
We can say we have amazing Nordic payment rails, but if the global economy is going to move onto stablecoins, then that matters much more than the fact that local payments already work well.
This is about the global picture and the future of Web3. We moved from read-only internet to read-and-write internet, and now we are moving toward a programmable internet that needs programmable financial rails.
That means we have to think globally. The Nordics are not a closed system. We export knowledge, services, and innovation. So we need to think about what kind of financial infrastructure the next digital age will need — especially in a world of AI agents, digital wallets, and global digital interaction.
From that perspective, of course, we need stablecoins, because that is where the world is moving.
And then from a local and regional point of view, we will also need local-currency stablecoins, whether that is in SEK, NOK, or DKK. It is not just about using what already works. It is about preparing for the next financial reality we are going to live in.
Where do you see the strongest Nordic opportunity in stablecoins: consumer payments, cross-border business flows, treasury management, or settlement infrastructure for tokenized finance?
Right now, I think the reality is still that stablecoins are used mostly in DeFi and among crypto-native companies.
The broader opportunity will depend on larger players making stablecoins accessible. One thing is that having stablecoins exist. Another is being able to access them through your normal banking and business infrastructure.
I am an investor in an offline business where I also work with payments and treasury. If my existing bank does not offer stablecoin infrastructure, am I really going to set up a completely separate system just to use it? For most companies, the answer is no.
So accessibility is the key issue right now.
If you look at the European regulatory direction more broadly, it is not only MiCA. We also have the digital business wallet, digital identity, digital product passports, and many other digital systems emerging. All of those points toward a future where digital activity increasingly needs digital money.
So I think the real opportunity is less about immediate retail payment adoption and more about cross-border business flows, settlement, treasury use cases, and integration into the broader financial infrastructure companies already use.
Until that accessibility exists, stablecoin adoption outside the DeFi community will remain limited.
When you look at the future mix of money in Europe, how do you think the Nordics will balance bank-led digital finance, private stablecoins, and public digital money initiatives?
I think the Nordics will have to balance all three, but probably in a very pragmatic way.
The region already has strong bank-led systems and a strong culture of trusted financial infrastructure. So banks will continue to play a major role.
At the same time, private stablecoins will become increasingly important because that is where global financial rails are moving, especially in cross-border and programmable environments.
And public digital money initiatives will also matter because Europe is clearly moving toward more digital identity, digital wallets, and other forms of public digital infrastructure.
So I do not think this becomes an either-or question. The real challenge is how these systems can coexist in a way that feels reliable, accessible, and useful in everyday financial activity.
Future of Nordic Blockchain Startups: Can the Region Build Globally Relevant Crypto Companies?
There is a big difference between being a well-regulated market and being a market that actually produces globally relevant companies. Which one is the Nordic region becoming right now?
I hope it becomes both.
From a global perspective, the Nordics are a very small region, and we need to recognize that. At the same time, one of our defining characteristics is exactly what some people criticize: consumer protection, GDPR, compliance, and transparency are a real part of our DNA.
So the question is how to turn that into a competitive advantage. Maybe our strength is that if something gets licensed or built in the Nordics, it is harder to do, but once it is done, it has been triple-checked, it is compliant, and it works.
That could be valuable. But the risk is that diligence becomes bureaucracy, and bureaucracy costs money and causes you to lose the technology race.
So I think the real question is how we focus on compliance and licensing without slowing everything down too much. That balance will always be difficult.
We do not want the Wild West. But we also do not want bureaucracy to kill innovation.
That is why I think legal sandboxes, test environments, and much better dialogue between lawmakers, policymakers, supervisors, and the industry are needed. If we can do that, then we may not be the fastest region, but we can become one that is trusted for building things properly.
And I think that is a real opportunity for the Nordics.
What is the biggest thing the Nordic ecosystem still lacks if it wants to produce category-defining crypto or blockchain companies: growth capital, faster regulation, talent density, stronger banking support, or simply more ambition?
I think regulatory responsiveness is the most immediate issue, but it is not the only one.
We already have talent. We have strong research. We have a history of building successful startups. What we have not had is the right environment for blockchain companies to emerge and scale from the region.
We also need stronger banking support and much better practical access to digital asset infrastructure. And yes, we need more founders and companies willing to build in these areas instead of assuming the region is not worth it.
So I would say the ecosystem does not lack raw capability. It lacks the alignment needed to turn that capability into globally relevant blockchain companies.
Five years from now, what would success for the Nordic crypto sector actually look like: a few breakout companies, stronger institutional rails, more influence on European policy, or a distinct Nordic model that other regions start copying?
Success would mean more companies being created out of the region, and more global companies choosing to open headquarters here.
We can always try to compete in exchange businesses and other global segments, but those are hard markets to win. I think we need to find the right niches.
So yes, more local companies building meaningful blockchain and digital asset solutions would be a strong sign. More global companies choosing the region would also be a strong sign.
And I would come back again to public sentiment. We should stop talking only about crypto. For me, that is an exchange term. We should talk much more about the underlying technology and the actual problems it solves.
People understand the principle of Wi-Fi or cloud computing without needing to understand every technical layer underneath. Blockchain should eventually reach that kind of public understanding as well.
So for me, success means more local builders, more global relevance, and a much more mature public conversation about what blockchain technology is actually for.
Closing Thoughts
Hansen’s core argument is that the Nordic region should not try to win by copying faster, looser crypto markets. Its real opportunity lies in building a different kind of advantage: trusted digital finance infrastructure backed by strong compliance, institutional credibility, and a long-term approach to blockchain adoption.
But that advantage is not automatic. If MiCA licensing stays slow, regulatory interpretation remains fragmented, and compliance becomes too expensive, the Nordics risk becoming a market that consumes innovation rather than creates it.
At the same time, the pace and quality of blockchain expansion in the region could be significantly improved with the involvement of global industry leaders that already operate within regulated environments. Companies like Coinspaid Solutions, as a member of the Nordic Blockchain Association, bring hands-on expertise in operational execution and scalable blockchain infrastructure. Their experience as a blockchain payment rails provider might help local players build a business environment faster and deploy globally competitive solutions.
In that sense, the future of the Nordic crypto market may depend less on whether MiCA exists and more on whether the region can combine its traditional strengths — trust, execution, digital maturity, and fintech credibility — with practical know-how on how to implement blockchain solutions in a compliant and efficient way in the era of stablecoins, tokenization, and programmable money.
