Binance co-CEO Richard Teng speaking at Binance Blockchain Week 2023.

Binance Says Most EU Withdrawals Went to Self-Custody After MiCA Cutoff

By Isaac • July 11, 2026 12:33 pm • Comments

Binance’s MiCA cutoff did not send most affected European money to a licensed rival.

Most of it went off exchanges entirely.

Binance co-CEO Richard Teng says 70% of the funds withdrawn by affected EU users moved to self-custodied wallets after the exchange suspended services. Only 30% went to platforms authorized under the European Union’s Markets in Crypto-Assets regulation.

Trending: America’s CBDC Ban Is Set to Take Effect Without President Trump’s Signature

A The Block report says Teng disclosed the split at Reuters NEXT Asia. He used it to question whether the new regime reduced risk when so much customer money moved beyond exchange supervision, anti-money-laundering controls, and know-your-customer checks.

The split is Teng’s account of user movement, not an independent tally from European regulators. It nevertheless describes a sharp user response to a hard regulatory deadline.

Binance withdrew its MiCA application in Greece before the July 1 cutoff and then suspended services for affected EU users. Teng said delays in the approval process left the exchange without enough time for a short transition.

He also said Binance remains committed to Europe and intends to seek authorization in another EU jurisdiction. No new jurisdiction, application date, or approval timetable was announced.

The 70% number quickly became an argument that MiCA had pushed users outside the regulated exchange system. That is only part of the picture.

Self-custody means a user controls the wallet keys instead of leaving assets with an exchange or another custodian. It removes one layer of counterparty exposure, but it also moves storage, recovery, and transaction security onto the user.

The official wind-down rules anticipated that choice.

An April European Securities and Markets Authority statement said national MiCA transition periods could run no later than July 1, 2026. After that date, firms without authorization had to stop providing crypto-asset services.

For an orderly exit, ESMA explicitly listed two destinations for customer assets across the European Union: a crypto-asset service provider authorized under MiCA or a self-hosted wallet. The regulator also required advance notice, a credible operating plan, and continued compliance with conduct, prudential, and anti-money-laundering obligations rather than an improvised shutdown after the deadline.

That detail changes the framing.

The 70% destination was not a route European regulators forgot to consider. It was one of the permitted ways for users to leave an unauthorized provider.

The market reaction still points to a real tension in the policy.

MiCA can force an unauthorized exchange to stop serving EU customers. It cannot force those customers to choose another regulated intermediary instead of holding their own keys.

ESMA tightened the exit instructions again as the deadline arrived. A June European Securities and Markets Authority statement said unauthorized providers had to stop onboarding new clients and stop marketing their services immediately.

Those firms could conduct only the limited activity needed to sell, transfer, reallocate, or close customer positions. They could continue custody only for the time required to complete an orderly exit.

ESMA also required clear and repeated notices to customers, reasonable deadlines, and continued anti-money-laundering and counter-terrorist-financing controls throughout the wind-down. The goal was to keep a licensing cutoff from becoming a disorderly loss of access.

That is a narrower claim than saying MiCA keeps every departing asset inside a supervised venue.

The rules govern how the unlicensed provider exits. Once assets reach a self-hosted wallet, day-to-day custody is no longer being performed by that provider.

Authorization can be checked through the European Securities and Markets Authority MiCA register, which lists authorized crypto-asset service providers and identified non-compliant entities. ESMA updated the interim register on July 3, two days after the transition period ended.

Teng pointed to Abu Dhabi’s Financial Services Regulatory Authority as Binance’s home regulator and highlighted licenses in several Asian markets. Those approvals may support operations in their own jurisdictions, but they do not substitute for MiCA authorization to serve EU customers.

The next meaningful development will be a new European application, followed by an actual authorization if regulators approve it. Until that happens, affected EU users cannot be brought back under the suspended service simply because Binance is licensed somewhere else.

The 70/30 split is best read as a measure of what users chose under a hard cutoff. It does not prove that MiCA worked, and it does not prove that MiCA failed.

It does show the limit of exchange regulation: authorities can decide which companies may operate, but users still decide whether their assets remain inside the regulated platform system at all.

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

 

Search ProCoinNews