European Commission reviews MiCA regulations to balance market access and compliance costs

European Commission reviews MiCA regulations to balance market access and compliance costs

With zero asset-referenced tokens authorized and compliance costs running into millions, the EU's crypto rulebook faces its first real stress test

Europe’s landmark crypto regulation is getting its first report card, and the grades are mixed. The European Commission’s public consultation on the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation, better known as MiCA, has been gathering feedback from industry participants, national regulators, and the public since May 20, 2026, with the deadline recently extended to September 30.

The numbers tell a complicated story

MiCA rolled out in phases, with stablecoin-specific rules going live on June 30, 2024, and broader regulatory requirements for crypto-asset service providers (CASPs) following on December 30, 2024. The framework was supposed to give the EU a first-mover advantage in crypto regulation, creating a single licensing regime that lets firms “passport” their services across all member states.

As of September 1, 2026, the results are telling. There are 39 e-money tokens issued under MiCA. The number of authorized asset-referenced tokens, the category that includes stablecoins backed by baskets of assets or commodities, stands at zero.

Advertisement

Capital requirements under MiCA range from €50,000 for firms offering basic Class 1 services to €150,000 for Class 3 operators like trading platforms. Ongoing compliance costs for firms are projected to run in the tens to hundreds of thousands of euros annually, with larger operations potentially facing bills in the millions.

The EBA weighs in on stablecoins

The European Banking Authority added its own perspective on September 24, 2026, recommending that the Commission strengthen regulations around multi-issuer stablecoins and clarify existing definitions within the framework. Multi-issuer stablecoins, where multiple entities share responsibility for maintaining a token’s peg, present unique supervisory challenges.

Consolidation pressure builds

The feedback collected through September 30 will feed into reports the Commission must prepare by June 2027. Those reports could lead to legislative amendments, meaning the MiCA framework firms are currently spending millions to comply with might look meaningfully different within a year or two.

The passporting mechanism remains MiCA’s strongest selling point. A single license granting access to a market of roughly 450 million consumers is a genuine competitive advantage that no other jurisdiction can replicate.

The zero count on authorized asset-referenced tokens suggests that at least one corner of MiCA’s framework isn’t functioning as designed. The Commission’s June 2027 reports will signal whether MiCA 2.0 leans toward easing compliance friction or doubling down on the current approach.

Disclosure: This article was edited by John Chen. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.
European Commission reviews MiCA regulations to balance market access and compliance costs
European Commission reviews MiCA regulations to balance market access and compliance costs

With zero asset-referenced tokens authorized and compliance costs running into millions, the EU's crypto rulebook faces its first real stress test

Share

Add us on Google

Europe’s landmark crypto regulation is getting its first report card, and the grades are mixed. The European Commission’s public consultation on the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation, better known as MiCA, has been gathering feedback from industry participants, national regulators, and the public since May 20, 2026, with the deadline recently extended to September 30.

The numbers tell a complicated story

MiCA rolled out in phases, with stablecoin-specific rules going live on June 30, 2024, and broader regulatory requirements for crypto-asset service providers (CASPs) following on December 30, 2024. The framework was supposed to give the EU a first-mover advantage in crypto regulation, creating a single licensing regime that lets firms “passport” their services across all member states.

As of September 1, 2026, the results are telling. There are 39 e-money tokens issued under MiCA. The number of authorized asset-referenced tokens, the category that includes stablecoins backed by baskets of assets or commodities, stands at zero.

Advertisement

Capital requirements under MiCA range from €50,000 for firms offering basic Class 1 services to €150,000 for Class 3 operators like trading platforms. Ongoing compliance costs for firms are projected to run in the tens to hundreds of thousands of euros annually, with larger operations potentially facing bills in the millions.

The EBA weighs in on stablecoins

The European Banking Authority added its own perspective on September 24, 2026, recommending that the Commission strengthen regulations around multi-issuer stablecoins and clarify existing definitions within the framework. Multi-issuer stablecoins, where multiple entities share responsibility for maintaining a token’s peg, present unique supervisory challenges.

Consolidation pressure builds

The feedback collected through September 30 will feed into reports the Commission must prepare by June 2027. Those reports could lead to legislative amendments, meaning the MiCA framework firms are currently spending millions to comply with might look meaningfully different within a year or two.

The passporting mechanism remains MiCA’s strongest selling point. A single license granting access to a market of roughly 450 million consumers is a genuine competitive advantage that no other jurisdiction can replicate.

The zero count on authorized asset-referenced tokens suggests that at least one corner of MiCA’s framework isn’t functioning as designed. The Commission’s June 2027 reports will signal whether MiCA 2.0 leans toward easing compliance friction or doubling down on the current approach.

Disclosure: This article was edited by John Chen. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.