WaaS and MiCA Compliance: Asset Segregation Explained

Executive Summary

• MiCA sets EU-wide rules that include obligations for crypto-asset service providers (CASPs) offering custody and administration of crypto-assets on behalf of clients.
• Under MiCA, custodians must segregate client crypto-asset holdings from their own holdings and clearly identify the “means of access” to client crypto-assets (e.g., keys).
• MiCA also requires client-position registers and periodic position statements, which makes wallet architecture and operational controls directly relevant.
• WaaS can support these outcomes depending on how address structure, access control, and operational workflows are implemented, but infrastructure alone does not equal compliance.

What MiCA Requires From Crypto Wallet and Custody Providers

MiCA establishes harmonised EU rules for crypto-assets and crypto-asset services.

For custody, MiCA’s definition is explicit: “providing custody and administration of crypto-assets on behalf of clients” means safekeeping or controlling, on behalf of clients, crypto-assets or the means of access to those crypto-assets, including (where applicable) private cryptographic keys.

MiCA’s CASP provisions apply from 30 December 2024 (with transitional arrangements depending on national law and authorisation timing).

Why this matters for wallet products: MiCA describes outcomes (segregation, record integrity, access controls) that a provider must be able to evidence. Wallet architecture and operational design determine whether those outcomes are actually demonstrable in day-to-day operations.

If you’re new to WaaS models, check this page out for baseline definitions (what WaaS is, where responsibility sits, and typical deployment models).

Defining Asset Segregation Under MiCA

MiCA’s custody article is the anchor for segregation requirements.

Under Article 75(7), custodians must:

• Segregate client crypto-asset holdings from their own holdings.
• Ensure the means of access to client crypto-assets is clearly identified as such.
• Ensure that on the distributed ledger, clients’ crypto-assets are held separately from the custodian’s own crypto-assets.
• Ensure the crypto-assets held in custody are legally segregated from the CASP’s estate (so creditors have no recourse under applicable law, including in insolvency scenarios) and operationally segregated.

This makes “segregation” multi-layered:

• On-chain separation
• Access control separation
• Legal and operational separation

Why Asset Segregation Becomes a Wallet Infrastructure Problem

MiCA’s custody requirements reference both the distributed ledger and the means of access.

That pushes segregation into the design of:

• Address structure (how assets are held “separately” on-ledger)
• Key/access structure (how “means of access” is identified and controlled)
• Operational workflows (how movement and approvals are evidenced and recorded)

MiCA also requires that custodians keep a register of positions per client, record movements as soon as possible, and evidence movements by transactions recorded in that register.

If your wallet infrastructure can’t produce consistent, reviewable linkage between wallet activity and client position records, segregation becomes difficult to demonstrate.

Custodial, Non-Custodial, and WaaS Models Under MiCA

MiCA’s custody definition focuses on control of crypto-assets or the means of access (keys).

That framing is useful for distinguishing models:

• Custodial models: the service provider controls crypto-assets or keys on behalf of clients → custody obligations (including Article 75) are directly relevant.
• WaaS models: a WaaS provider supplies infrastructure while the regulated entity decides how keys and controls are structured. MiCA obligations generally attach to the entity providing the crypto-asset service to clients, but the infrastructure design still constrains what you can evidence.

How WaaS Providers Can Support MiCA-Aligned Asset Segregation

WaaS can help a regulated entity implement MiCA outcomes by enabling infrastructure patterns aligned with Article 75’s requirements (separation on-ledger, clear access identification, recordkeeping).

Examples of capabilities:

• Support for on-ledger separation approaches (so client assets can be held separately from firm assets)
• Access-control tooling that helps maintain clarity over the means of access to client assets
• Workflow controls that reduce the chance of untracked movements (supporting the client position register obligations)

Important boundary: MiCA sets obligations on the CASP; infrastructure can support implementation, but the CASP remains responsible for configuring and operating controls in a compliant way.

Common Asset Segregation Failure Modes

These are typical ways teams fall out of alignment with Article 75’s requirements:

• Commingled holdings that make it hard to demonstrate on-ledger separation between client and firm crypto-assets
• Unclear “means of access” ownership or control, especially where operational teams cannot clearly evidence how client access differs from firm access
• Weak linkage between wallet activity and the client register of positions, which MiCA requires custodians to maintain and update

FAQ

Does MiCA require one wallet per client?

MiCA requires custodians to ensure client crypto-assets are held separately from the custodian’s own crypto-assets on the distributed ledger, but it does not mandate a specific wallet-per-user design in the text.

Is asset segregation only relevant in insolvency?

No. Article 75 includes operational segregation and ongoing controls like position registers and statements, not only insolvency treatment.

What client reporting does MiCA require for custody?

Custodians must provide a statement of position at least once every three months (and at the client’s request) identifying assets, balance, value, and transfers in the period.

Does MiCA define or certify “MiCA-compliant wallets”?

MiCA defines obligations for services (e.g., custody) and does not create a general product certification for “MiCA-compliant wallets.”