MiCA’s Stablecoin Regime and Its Remaining Challenges: Part 3

Although MiCA is a regulation which means it is directly applicable to countries and to firms, it still requires national laws to determine how it will be implemented and enforced at the national level. For the most part, MiCA compliance is supervised and enforced by EU national authorities. These implementation laws establish who the “competent national authority” is for MiCA within each individual country, and whether there is a transitional period for CASP activities (e.g. to transition from an existing registration or licensing regime, to the MiCA regime). Without these laws, national authorities do not have a mandate over MiCA, therefore cannot even receive MiCA applications. Currently, around half of the EU member states have not yet passed the necessary implementation laws. 

Uncertainty about how MiCA will be practically understood and implemented 

Covering all of the EU, MiCA has significant influence as one of the world’s first comprehensive regulatory regimes for crypto asset issuers and service providers. It draws from traditional market regulation and the unique risk profiles of crypto asset products and services existent at that time. As with any new regulatory framework, particularly in a sector previously subject to only more limited requirements in most cases, there remains uncertainty about how these theoretical rules will be practically understood and implemented by both firms and regulators (who might also consider national gold-plating of MiCA rules). To address this, the EBA and ESMA have provided detailed rules and guidance to ensure a consistent approach across the EU. However, not every issue can always be covered in advance, especially in such an evolving and dynamic market. For example, the scope of MiCA’s stablecoin regime requires issuers (or other persons) publicly offering or seeking admission to trading in the EU to have a MiCA license. There is some uncertainty around the opportunities for trading of non-MiCA authorized stablecoins post-30 June for future CASPs, particularly in light of MiCA’s CASP provisions only taking effect on 30 December 2024. While some firms have announced upcoming changes on their platforms before June 30, the approaches across Europe may vary significantly in practice.

MiCA’s effectiveness, and its ultimate success, will depend on a transparent and consistent implementation by national regulators across the EU and a clear understanding of regulatory expectations by firms. 

Implications of EMTs as e-money and crypto assets

The dual classification of EMTs as both crypto assets and funds under MiCA can cause confusion for CASPs. How EMTs are treated matters less for issuers (who must be e-money institutions or credit institutions in any case) but it could significantly impact CASPs. Given EMTs are considered e-money (and therefore funds), transactions which involve EMTs could be classified as regulated payment services, requiring CASPs to obtain an additional license (in addition to their MiCA license) under the EU’s payment services rules (PSD2). However, if EMTs are regarded solely as crypto assets (in a transactional context), a MiCA license would suffice. 

It’s important to note that legal definitions, including for “crypto-assets” are context-specific and dependent on the relevant EU legislation. For example, under the EU’s Transfer of Funds Regulation (FTR), EMTs are treated purely as crypto assets, while under the EU’s recently updated sanctions regime, they are to be classified as funds. This ambiguity underscores the need for clear guidelines in MiCA or the (upcoming revision of) European payments regulation to ensure that all firms understand their regulatory obligations. 

This issue also highlights the broader challenge of distinguishing between different types of crypto assets. This is reminiscent of the ongoing discussions around MiCA “crypto-assets” versus financial instruments under the EU’s traditional financial market, MiFID regulations. ESMA proposed a ‘cautious’ approach here, essentially classifying ambiguous/hybrid tokens as financial instruments, subjecting them to more stringent regulations. This stance aims to ensure comprehensive oversight and consumer protection.

The future of stablecoin regulation 

Stablecoins are today the largest single use case for crypto assets and MiCA’s stablecoin regime signifies a pivotal moment for the regulation of crypto assets in Europe, setting a precedent for global regulatory standards. The detailed prudential and conduct requirements, alongside stringent governance and redemption rules, reflect the EU’s commitment to establishing a rigorous and comprehensive regulatory environment for stablecoins.

However, the journey towards full regulatory clarity and seamless implementation is fraught with remaining challenges. The pending national implementation laws across EU member states, the slightly nebulous scope of the stablecoin regime with regards to future CASPs and the dual classification of EMTs as both funds and crypto assets are likely to create significant uncertainties from June 30th onwards.

Ongoing efforts by the EBA and ESMA to refine standards and guidelines are expected to provide much-needed clarity and ensure that all stakeholders can navigate the new regulatory landscape effectively, fostering a more robust and secure crypto asset market. 

Chainalysis is here to support

Feeling overwhelmed by new compliance requirements for CASPs or stablecoin issuers? Chainalysis can help. Our blockchain analytics solutions streamline compliance with regulations and empower you to make data-driven business decisions.

Struggling with National Risk Assessments or need market insights? We’ve got you covered. Our experts can guide you through the NRA process and provide  invaluable Market Intelligence reports to stay ahead of the curve.

Reach out today and learn how Chainalysis can help you:

• Simplify compliance with CASP regulations.
• Make smarter business decisions with data-driven insights.
• Gain a competitive edge with our Market Intelligence reports.

This website contains links to third-party sites that are not under the control of Chainalysis, Inc. or its affiliates (collectively “Chainalysis”). Access to such information does not imply association with, endorsement of, approval of, or recommendation by Chainalysis of the site or its operators, and Chainalysis is not responsible for the products, services, or other content hosted therein. 

This material is for informational purposes only, and is not intended to provide legal, tax, financial, or investment advice. Recipients should consult their own advisors before making these types of decisions. Chainalysis has no responsibility or liability for any decision made or any other acts or omissions in connection with Recipient’s use of this material.

Chainalysis does not guarantee or warrant the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, suitability or validity of the information in this report and will not be responsible for any claim attributable to errors, omissions, or other inaccuracies of any part of such material.