EU MiCA Review 2026: Stablecoins, DeFi and Crypto Services Under Consultation
The European Commission has opened a comprehensive review of the EU’s Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation. The exercise could lead to changes affecting stablecoin issuers, crypto-asset service providers, payment-related business models, DeFi platforms, staking, lending and tokenised assets.
The review does not mean that MiCA has already been amended. The Commission is collecting evidence to determine whether the framework remains fit for purpose following its initial implementation and subsequent market developments.
The targeted consultation opened on 20 May 2026. Its deadline has since been extended to 30 September 2026 at 23:59 CEST, giving regulated firms and other specialist stakeholders additional time to submit evidence.
For crypto, fintech and payments businesses, the review is commercially significant. It may determine whether some currently unregulated or indirectly regulated services receive dedicated rules, and whether existing stablecoin and CASP requirements should become more restrictive, more proportionate or more closely aligned with other EU financial legislation.
For readers’ convenience, we have placed the key official sources and regulatory materials at the end of this article.
Publish Date
08 Aug 2026
Reading Time
14 minutes
Category
Legal News
Jurisdiction
EU
Why is the European Commission reviewing MiCA?
Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 on markets in crypto-assets established a harmonised EU framework for crypto-assets that were not already covered by other financial-services legislation.
The main MiCA provisions became fully applicable on 30 December 2024. They introduced requirements for crypto-asset issuers, asset-referenced tokens, e-money tokens and crypto-asset service providers.
However, the legislation was negotiated before several important market and policy developments reached their current scale. These include:
- growing use of global stablecoins;
- tokenised financial instruments and deposits;
- crypto lending and borrowing;
- staking-as-a-service;
- DeFi protocols;
- perpetual crypto derivatives;
- prediction markets;
- and closer integration between crypto, banking and payment services.
The Commission says it is assessing whether MiCA remains fit for purpose in light of its initial application and subsequent market and policy developments. Responses will support the reports required under Articles 140 and 142 of MiCA and may, where justified, lead to a legislative proposal.
This is therefore more than an implementation review. It is also an opportunity for the Commission to consider whether activities left outside MiCA should be brought into a revised EU framework.
The consultation does not represent a final EU policy position
Businesses should distinguish between the questions being asked and decisions already taken.
The consultation documents are working documents of the Commission services. They do not constitute a formal legislative proposal or prejudge the Commission’s final position.
The review may result in:
- no legislative change;
- targeted amendments to particular MiCA provisions;
- clarification through guidance or technical standards;
- coordination with other EU legislation;
- or a wider legislative proposal covering currently excluded activities.
It would therefore be premature to describe the exercise as “MiCA 2” or to state that DeFi, staking or lending will definitely become separately regulated.
The consultation nevertheless gives businesses an important indication of the areas where the Commission sees uncertainty, regulatory gaps or possible weaknesses.
What areas does the MiCA review cover?
The targeted consultation is divided into four broad parts:
- MiCA scope, definitions and crypto-asset classification;
- rules for asset-referenced tokens and e-money tokens;
- the legal framework for crypto-asset service providers;
- activities and assets outside MiCA’s original scope.
The final section addresses DeFi, staking, lending, borrowing, NFTs, prediction markets, perpetual futures, tokenised deposits and legal certainty for on-chain assets.
The consultation also examines whether existing obligations create unnecessary burdens and whether the framework adequately supports investor protection, market integrity and innovation.
MiCA classification and the boundary with MiFID II
One of the first issues concerns the distinction between MiCA crypto-assets and financial instruments regulated under MiFID II and related securities legislation.
MiCA excludes crypto-assets that qualify as financial instruments. Those assets may instead fall under rules such as:
- MiFID II;
- MiFIR;
- the Market Abuse Regulation;
- the Prospectus Regulation;
- and national securities-law definitions.
This distinction can be difficult in practice. Hybrid tokens, tokenised fund interests, governance tokens, synthetic exposures and assets issued in series may present complex classification questions.
The Commission asks whether financial instruments recorded and transacted using distributed-ledger technology should continue to remain under sector-specific legislation. It also asks whether all DLT-based assets and related services should instead be brought under MiCA.
A significant change in this area could affect:
- tokenisation platforms;
- investment firms;
- CASPs expanding into tokenised securities;
- DLT trading venues;
- asset managers;
- and issuers deciding how to structure digital instruments.
For businesses, classification is not a purely technical issue. It determines the applicable licence, disclosure framework, market-abuse regime and investor-protection obligations.
Stablecoin rules are a central part of the review
The Commission devotes a substantial part of the consultation to asset-referenced tokens and e-money tokens.
Under MiCA, an e-money token aims to maintain a stable value by referencing one official currency. An asset-referenced token may reference other assets, rights or combinations of values.
The review examines whether the existing stablecoin regime adequately addresses:
- reserve composition;
- reserve segregation;
- redemption rights;
- significant-token thresholds;
- multi-issuer structures;
- global stablecoins;
- EU and non-EU holders;
- crisis-management risks;
- and the treatment of stablecoins issued by credit institutions.
These questions could materially affect stablecoin issuers, CASPs distributing stablecoins and financial institutions integrating stablecoins into payment or settlement products.
Reserve assets and credit-institution issuers
The consultation asks whether credit institutions issuing e-money tokens should face clearer reserve-maintenance and segregation requirements.
Possible approaches raised by the Commission include:
- requiring reserve assets to be maintained and segregated within the credit institution;
- requiring issuance through a legally separate entity;
- or keeping the current MiCA framework unchanged.
No such change has yet been adopted. However, the inclusion of these options indicates that the Commission is examining whether the current treatment of bank-issued e-money tokens provides sufficient protection and legal clarity.
Banks considering tokenised money products should therefore assess whether their proposed structure could remain suitable under stricter segregation rules.
Significant stablecoin thresholds may be reconsidered
MiCA subjects significant asset-referenced tokens and e-money tokens to enhanced prudential, governance and supervisory requirements.
The existing criteria include quantitative and qualitative measures such as:
- the number of holders;
- outstanding value or market capitalisation;
- transaction volumes;
- cross-border significance;
- interconnectedness;
- and the importance of the issuer’s activities.
The consultation asks whether the existing thresholds should be lowered, increased or otherwise adjusted. It specifically references the current thresholds involving more than 10 million holders and an outstanding value or market capitalisation exceeding €5 billion.
A lower threshold could cause more stablecoins to become significant earlier. A higher threshold could reduce the burden for issuers that have achieved material scale without creating EU-wide systemic concerns.
Issuers should consider whether their growth forecasts could place them within an amended significance framework.
Global stablecoins and multi-issuer arrangements
The Commission is also examining stablecoins issued through multiple entities or across several jurisdictions.
A multi-issuer arrangement may involve different legal entities issuing tokens that share a brand, reserve structure or technical infrastructure. This can create uncertainty around:
- which entity owes redemption obligations;
- where reserves are held;
- whether EU holders have effective claims;
- how reserves can be transferred during stress;
- and which supervisor has access to the relevant information.
The consultation asks whether reserve assets distributed across jurisdictions and legal entities may become difficult to transfer or rebalance during a crisis.
It also raises possible safeguards concerning redemption rights and the treatment of tokens circulating in the EU.
This aspect of the review is especially important for non-EU stablecoin groups operating through an EU issuer or distributor.
Could stablecoin redemption rights change?
MiCA grants redemption rights to holders of regulated asset-referenced tokens and e-money tokens, subject to the applicable legal framework.
The consultation asks whether those rights should be expressly limited to EU holders. It also explores whether direct redemption could be restricted to customers of EU-authorised CASPs or differentiated between retail and professional holders during a crisis.
These are consultation options, not adopted rules.
Any future distinction based on the holder’s location, wallet type or relationship with an authorised CASP could have major operational consequences.
Issuers and distributors may need to identify:
- where holders are located;
- whether tokens are held through hosted or unhosted wallets;
- which entity provides redemption;
- whether redemption rights differ by distribution channel;
- and how crisis-related restrictions would be implemented technically.
The MiCA and payment-services overlap remains commercially important
Stablecoins and crypto transfers can function as both crypto services and payment services.
A CASP may therefore need to assess whether its activities fall only under MiCA or also involve regulated payment services under the EU payments framework.
Potential areas of overlap include:
- transferring e-money tokens;
- using stablecoins for merchant settlement;
- operating custodial wallets with payment functionality;
- facilitating customer-to-customer transfers;
- executing payment-like transactions;
- and converting between fiat funds and stablecoins.
This can create uncertainty over whether a business needs:
- only CASP authorisation;
- an electronic money institution licence;
- a payment institution licence;
- a banking authorisation;
- or a combined regulatory structure.
The review provides an opportunity to clarify the relationship between MiCA and wider financial-services legislation. It does not, however, suspend current licensing obligations.
Businesses should continue to assess their present model under both MiCA and applicable payment-services rules.
The Commission is reviewing the scope of CASP services
MiCA regulates ten defined categories of crypto-asset services. These include custody, operating a trading platform, exchange, execution, placing, reception and transmission of orders, advice, portfolio management and transfer services.
The Commission is assessing whether the current list remains appropriate.
Relevant questions include whether:
- additional services should be expressly regulated;
- existing service definitions are sufficiently clear;
- requirements are proportionate across different CASP models;
- the framework properly addresses new forms of intermediation;
- and administrative burdens can be reduced without weakening protection.
The consultation does not cover every supervisory issue. The Commission expressly states that CASP supervisory arrangements are being considered through the separate market-integration and supervision package.
Businesses should therefore distinguish between:
- amendments to CASP obligations and service definitions;
- and possible changes to which authority supervises cross-border CASPs.
Crypto lending is under direct review
Crypto lending and borrowing are not currently separate crypto-asset services under MiCA.
A business may nevertheless require MiCA authorisation for related activities. For example, custody, transfer, exchange or order-related services connected to a lending product may fall within the existing framework.
The Commission asks directly whether lending and borrowing of crypto-assets should be regulated and, if so, which substantive requirements should apply.
Potential regulatory concerns include:
- credit and counterparty risk;
- collateral valuation;
- liquidation procedures;
- rehypothecation;
- maturity mismatch;
- customer disclosures;
- conflicts of interest;
- insolvency treatment;
- and concentration risk.
A future lending regime could affect centralised lending platforms, CASPs offering yield products and institutions using crypto-assets as collateral.
Firms should avoid treating the absence of a dedicated MiCA lending category as confirmation that their entire lending model is unregulated.
Staking may receive a more explicit regulatory framework
MiCA does not currently define staking as a separate crypto-asset service.
The Commission’s consultation notes that staking services often involve custody of crypto-assets or control over the private keys used to access them. In such cases, a provider may need authorisation for custody and administration under Article 75 of MiCA.
The consultation also states that CASPs should obtain explicit client consent before staking customer assets because staking may affect their availability.
The Commission asks whether the current approach is adequate and what additional requirements should apply if it is not.
A dedicated staking framework could address:
- client consent;
- lock-up periods;
- slashing risk;
- validator selection;
- reward calculation;
- fees;
- custody;
- delegation arrangements;
- liquidity;
- and withdrawal delays.
CASPs providing staking should document the legal and operational structure now. They should not wait for a possible MiCA amendment before addressing custody, consent and risk-disclosure obligations.
DeFi could move closer to a formal EU regulatory model
Fully decentralised services are generally outside MiCA where they are provided without an intermediary.
In practice, determining whether a service is genuinely decentralised can be difficult. A protocol may have developers, governance-token holders, administrators, front-end operators, fee recipients or other persons exercising influence.
The consultation explores possible approaches to DeFi, including:
- mandatory or voluntary certification;
- standards for protocols and smart contracts;
- public or private certifying bodies;
- significance thresholds;
- and restrictions on CASPs connecting customers to uncertified protocols.
One option raised is whether CASPs should be prevented from connecting clients to DeFi protocols that have not been certified.
This would create consequences beyond protocol developers. Regulated exchanges, wallet providers, custodians and aggregators could be required to conduct additional due diligence before providing access to DeFi.
Again, these options are exploratory. The Commission has not proposed a final EU DeFi certification regime.
What does the review mean for CASPs interacting with DeFi?
CASPs may face indirect regulatory obligations even where a DeFi protocol itself remains outside full authorisation.
Possible future obligations could concern:
- protocol due diligence;
- smart-contract risk;
- governance concentration;
- cybersecurity;
- customer disclosures;
- access restrictions;
- transaction monitoring;
- sanctions exposure;
- and incident-management arrangements.
Businesses should map which party controls each element of the customer journey.
Relevant parties may include:
- the protocol developer;
- front-end operator;
- wallet provider;
- CASP;
- liquidity provider;
- governance participants;
- oracle provider;
- and smart-contract administrator.
A claim that “the protocol is decentralised” is not sufficient where identifiable persons retain control over key functions.
NFTs remain outside MiCA only where they are genuinely unique
MiCA generally excludes crypto-assets that are unique and not fungible with other crypto-assets.
However, the legal classification depends on substance rather than the NFT label. Large collections, fractionalised tokens and assets with interchangeable economic characteristics may still fall within MiCA.
The consultation asks whether the current NFT market justifies regulating providers of NFT-related services and what the main requirements should be.
Possible future regulation could focus on:
- mass-issued collections;
- fractional ownership;
- financial characteristics;
- custody;
- marketplace operation;
- disclosure;
- and misleading use of the NFT exemption.
NFT platforms should therefore maintain a documented classification process.
Prediction markets and perpetual futures are also in scope
The consultation addresses the growth of DLT-based prediction markets and perpetual crypto futures.
The Commission asks whether prediction markets should fall under MiCA or MiFID II. It asks a similar question regarding perpetual futures on crypto-assets.
These products may already fall under gambling, derivatives or financial-services laws depending on their structure and jurisdiction.
Their inclusion in the review shows that the Commission is considering whether the current division between crypto regulation and traditional financial legislation remains workable.
Businesses offering such products should obtain jurisdiction-specific perimeter advice. MiCA authorisation alone may not be sufficient.
Tokenised deposits and on-chain financial assets
Tokenised deposits are digital representations of commercial-bank deposits recorded through distributed-ledger technology.
They differ from e-money tokens because the holder’s claim may remain a deposit claim against a bank rather than a claim against an e-money token issuer.
The consultation considers the role of tokenised deposits and asks broader questions about legal certainty for on-chain assets.
These questions include:
- whether a token can constitute an object of property;
- how legal title is transferred;
- how custody relationships should be classified;
- which rules apply during insolvency;
- and how security rights can be created over crypto-assets.
Differences between Member States can make cross-border structuring more complex. A future EU initiative could therefore extend beyond MiCA’s authorisation and conduct requirements.
Reverse solicitation remains a sensitive market-entry issue
MiCA permits a third-country firm to provide a crypto-asset service at the exclusive initiative of an EU client in narrowly defined circumstances.
This reverse-solicitation exemption must not be used to avoid EU authorisation. Marketing, solicitation, group campaigns, online targeting and affiliated-entity referrals can undermine reliance on the exemption.
Although reverse solicitation is part of the wider discussion around MiCA’s operation, firms should not assume the review will broaden the exemption.
The EU supervisory direction has generally favoured a narrow interpretation. Non-EU firms should assess whether they are actively serving or targeting EU customers and whether their activities require an authorised EU entity.
The MiCA review does not stop current authorisation deadlines
The consultation does not delay MiCA implementation.
The final national transitional periods ended across the EU no later than 1 July 2026. Firms can no longer rely on the review as a reason to postpone authorisation or compliance work.
CASPs should continue to comply with current obligations concerning:
- authorisation;
- governance;
- prudential safeguards;
- safeguarding and custody;
- conflicts of interest;
- outsourcing;
- complaints;
- market abuse;
- client disclosures;
- and operational resilience.
Any future amendment would require a separate legislative process. That process could involve a Commission proposal, negotiations between the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, publication and an application or transitional period.
What should crypto and fintech businesses do now?
The immediate priority is to separate current law from possible future change.
Review products outside the core MiCA perimeter
Businesses should identify services involving:
- lending;
- borrowing;
- staking;
- DeFi;
- NFTs;
- tokenised deposits;
- derivatives;
- prediction markets;
- and tokenised securities.
Each service should be assessed under MiCA and other relevant EU or national legislation.
Map stablecoin exposure
CASPs, payment firms and banks should identify:
- which stablecoins they issue or support;
- whether they are EMTs or ARTs;
- which issuer is responsible;
- where reserve assets are located;
- how redemption works;
- which holders have direct rights;
- and whether the arrangement includes non-EU entities.
Assess dual-authorisation risks
A MiCA licence may not cover activities regulated under payments, electronic-money, banking or securities legislation.
Businesses combining stablecoins with payments should perform a structured MiCA–payments perimeter review.
Examine DeFi connectivity
CASPs should document whether they provide access to protocols through:
- embedded interfaces;
- wallets;
- routing services;
- APIs;
- custody products;
- staking products;
- or customer recommendations.
They should also assess protocol control, smart-contract risk and customer disclosures.
Prepare evidence for the consultation
Firms considering a response should provide practical evidence rather than general policy views.
Useful evidence may include:
- authorisation costs;
- regulatory duplication;
- product-classification difficulties;
- stablecoin reserve constraints;
- payment-services overlap;
- customer demand;
- cross-border inconsistencies;
- operational risks;
- and examples of services not clearly covered by MiCA.
The targeted consultation deadline is 30 September 2026 at 23:59 CEST.
What may happen after the consultation?
The Commission will review stakeholder responses and use them in its assessment of MiCA’s application and wider crypto-market developments.
Possible next steps include:
- publishing a consultation-feedback summary;
- completing the reports required under MiCA;
- requesting further advice from ESMA or the European Banking Authority;
- proposing technical or interpretative measures;
- or presenting a legislative proposal.
A legislative proposal would not become law immediately. It would need to pass through the EU legislative process.
Businesses should therefore monitor the review but avoid restructuring solely around consultation options that may never be adopted.
Commercial implications for EU market entry
The review may affect how international groups structure their European operations.
A business entering the EU may currently need to consider:
- a CASP authorisation;
- an EMI or PI licence;
- a banking licence;
- an investment-firm licence;
- national lending rules;
- or a combination of permissions.
Future changes could alter where the regulatory boundaries sit, particularly for stablecoins, staking and lending.
This makes flexibility important. Group structures, service agreements, technology arrangements and customer contracts should allow the business to respond to changing perimeter requirements.
Businesses acquiring an authorised CASP should also assess whether the target’s licence and operating model cover the products planned after completion.
How Legasset can assist
Legasset advises crypto, fintech and payments businesses on MiCA authorisation, stablecoin structuring, EU market entry and regulatory-perimeter analysis.
We also assist with:
- CASP licensing;
- EMI and payment institution licensing;
- dual-authorisation structures;
- crypto lending and staking analysis;
- DeFi perimeter assessments;
- legal opinions;
- governance;
- AML/CFT;
- client migration;
- regulatory gap analysis;
- and regulated-entity transactions.
Where a transaction involves a licensed or regulated entity, sensitive information is considered after appropriate KYC, NDA and Proof of Funds procedures where applicable.
FAQ About the EU MiCA Review 2026
Has the European Union already amended MiCA?
No. The European Commission is conducting a consultation and review. The consultation questions do not constitute adopted rules or a formal legislative proposal.
When does the targeted MiCA consultation close?
The targeted consultation closes on 30 September 2026 at 23:59 CEST. The deadline was extended from the date stated in the original consultation materials.
Why is MiCA being reviewed so soon after implementation?
The review is partly required by MiCA itself. It also reflects developments in stablecoins, tokenisation, DeFi, staking, lending and other digital-asset services since the legislation was negotiated.
Will the review create a separate crypto-lending licence?
That has not been decided. The Commission asks whether crypto lending and borrowing should be regulated and what requirements should apply.
Is staking currently regulated under MiCA?
Staking is not a separate MiCA service. However, a staking provider may require CASP authorisation where its model involves custody or another regulated crypto-asset service.
Will DeFi become regulated under MiCA?
The consultation considers possible DeFi rules and certification models, but no final proposal has been adopted. The treatment of a particular service depends partly on whether identifiable persons control or provide it.
Could CASPs be prevented from connecting customers to DeFi protocols?
The targeted consultation raises this as one possible approach for uncertified protocols. It is not a current adopted prohibition.
Does MiCA regulate crypto lending today?
MiCA does not contain a separate crypto-lending service category. Related activities may nevertheless require authorisation under MiCA or other EU and national rules.
Could stablecoin redemption rights be restricted?
The Commission is consulting on possible changes involving EU holders, hosted and unhosted wallets, CASP customers and crisis situations. Current redemption rights remain in force unless the law is amended.
Are e-money tokens also payment instruments?
An e-money token may be used for payment purposes, but the legal analysis depends on the service provided. A business may need to assess both MiCA and EU payment-services legislation.
Does a CASP licence cover payment services?
Not automatically. A business conducting regulated payment services may also require a payment institution, electronic money institution or other relevant authorisation.
Does the consultation extend MiCA transitional periods?
No. The review does not extend national transitional arrangements or suspend current authorisation obligations.
Should non-EU crypto firms wait for the review before entering Europe?
Generally, no. Firms should structure their current activities under the law in force. Future amendments may take time and may differ substantially from the consultation options.
Can businesses still submit responses?
Specialist stakeholders may respond to the targeted consultation until 30 September 2026 at 23:59 CEST.
Topic-Specific Official Resources and Regulatory Materials
This is the Commission’s live consultation page. It confirms the extended 30 September 2026 deadline, target audience and purpose of the review.
II. European Commission — Targeted MiCA review consultation document
The detailed questionnaire covers crypto-asset classification, stablecoins, CASP services, DeFi, staking, lending, NFTs, tokenised deposits and other on-chain assets.
III. European Commission — Public consultation on the MiCA review
This consultation gathers views from consumers and the wider public on digital assets, stablecoins, DeFi, tokenised assets and related services.
IV. EUR-Lex — Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 on markets in crypto-assets
The official consolidated legal instrument establishes the EU framework for crypto-asset issuers, stablecoins and crypto-asset service providers.
V. European Securities and Markets Authority — MiCA implementation materials
ESMA’s MiCA hub contains supervisory guidance, technical standards, registers, statements and implementation materials relevant to CASPs.
VI. European Securities and Markets Authority — July 2026 MiCA Q&As
The July Q&As address matters including crypto-asset lending, custody and the boundary between MiCA advice and MiFID II advice.
VII. European Commission — EU crypto-assets policy and MiCA timeline
This page summarises the EU crypto-asset framework and provides access to MiCA policy developments, consultations and implementing measures.
