Malta’s Blockchain Island

2026-01-01

Tomasz is thirty-eight and has been making his living trading cryptocurrencies for a decade. He started in 2014 as a hobbyist—spent a thousand złoty on his first bitcoins just to see how it worked. Today, trading is his full-time occupation. He buys, sells, arbitrages between exchanges, trades futures contracts and options. In a good month, he makes thirty or forty thousand złoty. In a very good month, a hundred thousand. In a bad month, he loses money, too, but the average works out in his favor.

He runs everything legally. Registered business in Poland. Monthly VAT returns—crypto trading isn’t subject to VAT, and his accountant keeps telling him it makes no sense, but Tomasz figures it’s better to file zeros than to explain himself to the tax office. Annual income-tax return. Every transaction documented. Every transfer from the exchange to his bank account and back, itemized. Thousands of transactions a year, hundreds of pages of printouts for the accountant.

The Polish Tax Chaos: Eleven Years of Changes, Zero Predictability

January, 2018. Tomasz’s apartment in Warsaw. 11:47 A.M.

The phone rings. His accountant. Her voice sounds tired: “The Ministry changed its position again. Now every crypto-to-crypto exchange is a taxable event.”

Tomasz looks at his screen. Three hundred and forty-two transactions this month. Bitcoin to Ethereum. Ethereum to Litecoin. Litecoin back to Bitcoin. Arbitrage between exchanges. Everything documented. Everything legal.

And now, suddenly—everything taxable.

“How am I supposed to account for this?” he asks.

“Every transaction separately. Purchase price, sale price, difference, nineteen per cent. Three hundred and forty-two times.”

“What about the cost basis? Exchange fees?”

“FIFO method. First in, first out. If you bought one bitcoin for ten thousand in December, 2017, and another for fifteen thousand in January, 2018, and now you’re selling one—you have to assume you’re selling the first one, for ten thousand.”

“But I don’t know which one I sold. They’re electronic entries on the blockchain. Bitcoin doesn’t have a serial number.”

“Doesn’t matter. The tax authority says FIFO.”

Tomasz hangs up. Opens Excel. Starts manually transcribing transactions from three different exchanges, trying to reconstruct the sequence of purchases over the past four years.

Seven hours later, he has a migraine and a spreadsheet with twelve hundred rows. He’s still not sure he’s correctly identified which bitcoins came “out” first.

That was January, 2018.

April, 2018, would be worse.

Tomasz remembers how, in 2014, nobody knew how to tax cryptocurrencies. Total regulatory vacuum. One tax chamber said one thing, another said something else. Nobody knew whether Bitcoin was a currency, a commodity, property rights, or a financial instrument. Nobody knew whether to tax it as business income, capital gains, or not at all—maybe it wasn’t “real” money.

Then came 2015 and the Hedqvist ruling from the European Court of Justice: exchanging bitcoin for traditional currencies was exempt from VAT. The Tax Chamber in Warsaw had anticipated this as early as June, 2014. A good sign. Maybe there would be stability?

There wasn’t.

In January, 2018, the Ministry of Finance abruptly changed its position. Previously, only crypto-to-fiat exchanges had been taxable. Now—every transaction, including exchanges between cryptocurrencies. Crypto-to-crypto counted as a taxable event, too. For someone like Tomasz, who makes dozens of transactions a day, this meant a documentation nightmare.

But that was just the beginning of the nightmare.

In April, 2018, the Ministry of Finance published a guidance that Tomasz still recalls with disbelief: a one-per-cent civil-transaction tax on every purchase or exchange of cryptocurrency. Not on profits. On the market value of the transaction.

Tomasz executed one thousand three hundred and twenty-six transactions in April, 2018. He had to file a separate PCC-3 declaration for each transaction. One thousand three hundred and twenty-six declarations a month. Practically impossible to comply with.

The industry protested. In July, 2018, the government introduced a temporary suspension of the PCC tax—but only until June 30, 2019. Then they extended it. And extended it again. And again. Not until July 1, 2020—two years later—did they introduce a permanent exemption from the PCC tax.

Two years of living with uncertainty about whether, next month, he’d have to pay an absurd tax and file thousands of declarations all over again.

On January 1, 2019, a comprehensive amendment took effect. Finally. An official definition of virtual currency. Income from cryptocurrencies classified as capital gains. A uniform rate of nineteen per cent. Tax neutrality for crypto-to-crypto exchanges—so you didn’t have to pay tax on every swap, only on withdrawals to fiat. A dedicated form, PIT-38.

Tomasz exhaled. Stability at last. Clear rules.

But not for long.

Because new questions emerged—and, each time, the tax authorities said one thing while the administrative courts ruled something opposite. Tax advisers—no point even asking them, because their recommendations were impossible to parse.

In August, 2019, after five years of this chaos, Tomasz thought: Enough.

And that’s when he heard about Malta.

Malta—Blockchain Island, a Promise That Sounded Like Salvation

Malta declared itself “Blockchain Island” in 2018, under Prime Minister Joseph Muscat’s government. This wasn’t empty marketing talk. Malta really did become the first E.U. member state to adopt comprehensive legislation regulating blockchain, cryptocurrencies, and I.C.Os.

On July 4, 2018, the Maltese Parliament passed three groundbreaking laws creating Europe’s first comprehensive legal ecosystem for crypto. The Virtual Financial Assets Act. The Malta Digital Innovation Authority Act. The Innovative Technology Arrangements and Services Act.

Prime Minister Muscat personally met with leaders in the crypto industry. In September, 2018, in a speech to the United Nations General Assembly, he declared cryptocurrencies “the inevitable future of money.” The minister Silvio Schembri travelled the conference circuit, promising: Come to Malta, we have the best regulations in the world, clear laws, friendly authorities.

Binance—the world’s largest cryptocurrency exchange—announced it was moving its operations to Malta. OKEx, BitBay, Crypto.com—they all flocked to Malta.

Tomasz read all this and thought: If it works for Binance, it will work for me. I’ll finally escape the Polish tax chaos. I’ll finally have stability.

The Move—Enthusiasm Colliding with Brutal Reality

Tomasz made his decision in August, 2019. He would move to Malta. Physically. Rent an apartment, register his residence, become a Maltese tax resident, pay according to clear Maltese rules.

Malta: a member of the European Union. As a Polish citizen, Tomasz could legally reside there without a visa. Freedom of movement. He rented an apartment online—two rooms, in Sliema, twelve hundred euros a month. Flew over in September, 2019. Signed the lease. Registered his residence. Obtained a Maltese I.D. card. Filed an application for a tax-residency certificate.

He waited for his new life without Polish chaos.

And then everything started to fall apart.

The Banking Nightmare: Malta Doesn’t Want Crypto, Either

First thing: a bank account. Bank of Valletta—Malta’s largest bank. Tomasz scheduled a meeting. Brought his documents. Business plan: cryptocurrency trading.

Six weeks later: rejection. “Thank you for your interest. Unfortunately, we are unable to proceed with your application.”

But how? Malta is Blockchain Island. The government is shouting that Malta is a paradise for crypto. Bank of Valletta should be welcoming crypto clients with open arms.

The truth was brutal. Bank of Valletta had introduced—back in November, 2017, a year before the Blockchain Island campaign—a policy blocking customers from transferring funds to cryptocurrency exchanges. That policy remained in force despite the government campaign.

BNF Bank—same story. HSBC Malta—transactions blocked without warning. APS Bank—explicit policy: “Transfers from Virtual/Cryptocurrencies platforms are not accepted.”

Tomasz spent three months trying to open a Maltese account. No luck.

Eventually, he found a Lithuanian fintech company—an Electronic Money Institution. Not a bank. An electronic-money institution. No deposit insurance. Higher fees. But it worked. The account-opening process: another two months. Account opened in January, 2020. Five months after the move. But Tomasz could have opened such an account from Poland.

The absurdity was painful. Malta promotes itself as Blockchain Island. The government promises a crypto paradise. The Prime Minister meets with Binance’s C.E.O. But Maltese banks—all of them—refuse service.

Binance Was Never There

In February, 2020—five months after Tomasz’s move—the MFSA issued a statement: “Binance is not authorized to operate in Malta and never fell under MFSA regulatory oversight.”

Tomasz read it once, twice, three times. He couldn’t believe it.

Binance—the flagship example of Blockchain Island’s success, the exchange photographed with Prime Minister Muscat—had never held a Maltese license. Had never applied. Had never been subject to Maltese supervision.

Binance had exploited Malta’s transitional period—a year of operating without authorization while supposedly preparing applications—to conduct business without oversight and promote itself as “operating from Malta.” The C.E.O. called Malta its “spiritual home.” But Binance never intended to apply for a license. The process was too rigorous. Compliance too costly.

When the transitional period ended, Binance simply stopped using the Maltese branding. No announcement. No explanation.

The S.E.C., in 2023, revealed that Binance had an “appetite for weak or non-existent supervision.” Malta’s unregulated transitional period delivered exactly that.

Seventy Per Cent—Failure

In April, 2020, the MFSA published statistics: of the hundred and eighty companies that, in 2018, had expressed intent to operate, only twenty-six filed formal license applications. Eighty-nine announced they were ceasing operations.

By mid-2022—three years after the regulations took effect—Malta had authorized fifteen VFA-service providers. Eleven were actually operating.

The exams for VFA Agents—mandatory intermediaries between companies and the regulator—had a failure rate of sixty-one per cent. Practitioners criticized the exam for focussing on procedural minutiae instead of substantive knowledge.

Corruption and Collapse

In December, 2019—three months after Tomasz’s move—Prime Minister Joseph Muscat, the champion of Blockchain Island, resigned amid a crisis related to the murder of the investigative journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia.

In May, 2024, Muscat was charged with money laundering, bribery, corruption, and leading a criminal organization.

The Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project named him “Person of the Year in Organized Crime and Corruption” for 2019.

The FATF Grey List

In June, 2021, the Financial Action Task Force placed Malta on the “grey list” of jurisdictions with strategic deficiencies in combatting money laundering. Malta became the first E.U. member state with that designation.

Reports: more than sixty billion euros in cryptocurrencies had passed through Malta without adequate supervision.

Malta was removed from the list in June, 2022, but the reputational damage remained.

Double Taxation—the Second Blow

Tomasz had family in Poland. A wife, two children. They couldn’t move—his wife worked, the children were in school. Tomasz flew back and forth between Malta and Poland. Every two or three weeks, he’d return.

The Polish tax office, in March, 2022: “In 2020, your wife and children resided in Poland. We determine that the center of your vital interests was in Poland. You are obligated to file a tax return in Poland.”

Poland and Malta have a double-taxation treaty. Tiebreaker rules. Where are his closer personal and economic ties? Wife and children in Poland. Poland won.

Tomasz was a Polish tax resident despite his Maltese certificate. He had to file a return in Poland. Pay Polish taxes.

Worse Than Poland: Maltese Taxes for Traders

And that’s when Tomasz discovered something he should have checked before moving.

The Maltese guidance notes that had so impressed him—trading cryptocurrencies as business income—sounded good. But he hadn’t examined the taxation details. In theory, there were supposed to be no taxes for Maltese tax residents under the resident-non-domiciled regime.

Trading as business activity in Poland: nineteen per cent on profits. Done. Simple.

Trading as business income in Malta: thirty-five-per-cent corporate tax. Thirty-five. Not nineteen.

It turned out that taxation under the resident-non-domiciled regime didn’t apply to business activity conducted in Malta, including cryptocurrency trading. Theoretically, for business activity, Malta offered a tax-refund system that could lower the effective rate to five per cent. But that required setting up a Maltese company, operating through that company, paying dividends, navigating the refund system. Complicated. Expensive. Required Maltese substance—an office, staff, local bookkeeping, audits.

For someone like Tomasz—an individual trader, dozens of transactions a day, operating from a laptop—the Maltese system was more complicated and potentially more expensive than the Polish one.

Poland: nineteen per cent, form PIT-38, done.

Malta: thirty-five per cent, or a refund system requiring a corporate structure costing tens of thousands of euros a year.

Tomasz had fled Poland to escape tax instability. In Malta, he found higher rates and greater complications. Plus banks blocking crypto. Plus the grey-listing.

The Return: Sometimes the Devil You Know Is Better

Tomasz returned to Poland in 2022. Closed his Maltese account. Ended his residency.

The lesson was painful but clear: regulations alone don’t create success. Malta had ambitious blockchain laws. It didn’t have coöperation from banks. It didn’t have political stability. Its marketing wasn’t honest. And, for individual traders, it had higher taxes than Poland.

The story of Blockchain Island is a story of how a government can promote a vision that its own banking sector doesn’t support. How the biggest companies can exploit weak regulation without any intent to comply. How corruption destroys credibility, even for well-designed legal frameworks.

MiCA, in 2024-25, is giving Malta a second chance. “Blockchain Island” as a brand has been quietly retired, replaced by “experienced European crypto jurisdiction.” More modest. More realistic.

For Tomasz, the lesson was simple: Don’t believe Blockchain Island promises if the banks on that island don’t want your business. And check the actual tax rates before you move to escape Polish chaos—because sometimes the devil you know is cheaper than the paradise that doesn’t want you.

Content finder