The Lithuanian crypto market has seen another major exit as Dream Finance UAB — operating as CoinsPaid and CryptoProcessing and closely tied to the SoftSwiss ecosystem — announced a temporary suspension of all crypto-asset services from its Lithuanian arm. The move follows regulatory actions that also hit utPay and comes as Lithuania’s transitional MiCA grandfathering ended on 31 December 2025.
CoinsPaid’s legal notice states Dream Finance UAB halted onboarding, transaction execution and new agreements while maintaining its site for legal and regulatory contacts. Group disclosures list Dream Finance OÜ (Estonia), Dream Finance US LLC (Delaware) and Dream Finance Processing Inc. (Canada), indicating a shift of operations away from Lithuania rather than a total shutdown.
Regulatory pressure from the Bank of Lithuania and the EU’s Markets in Crypto-Assets framework is the primary driver. MiCA’s CASP authorization replaces Lithuania’s lower-bar registration with stricter requirements — including a minimum €125,000 in fully paid-up capital and enhanced fit-and-proper checks for owners and managers. Observers say CoinsPaid’s “suspension” likely reflects either a failed application or a strategic withdrawal to avoid public revocation.
Industry intelligence has long linked CoinsPaid and other payment rails to the SoftSwiss group and its key figures, including founder Ivan Montik and executives often named in related reports such as Pavel Kashuba and Maksim Trafimovich. CoinsPaid has acted as a major euro-rail for high-risk iGaming merchants connected to SoftSwiss platforms. Losing a Lithuanian foothold damages perceived regulatory legitimacy and may complicate euro-denominated fiat relationships for SoftSwiss-affiliated operators.
While Dream Finance maintains entities in Estonia and North America, MiCA’s passporting rules mean those units cannot legally serve the EU market without a valid CASP license from an EU regulator. For banks, compliance officers and merchants tied to SoftSwiss ecosystems, pressing questions remain: did the group apply for authorization, how will legacy flows be handled during the transition, and will risky merchant traffic simply migrate to other jurisdictions under the same ownership and management?
