EBA response to the targeted consultation of the European Commission on the review of MiCA
MiCA has applied in full since December 2024, but the market it regulates is already testing its boundaries. In its response to the European Commission’s consultation paper on the review of MiCA, the European Banking Authority (EBA) points towards a more precise rulebook: clearer token classifications, stronger safeguards for international stablecoins, and potential rules for crypto lending.
Table of Contents
Clearer clarity in the classification of tokens
Classification remains difficult where a token resembles more than one regulated product. The EBA highlights commodity-linked tokens, tokens linked to assets that approximate the value of a single currency, and “wrapped” tokens that mirror assets on another blockchain. Greater clarity could help firms determine earlier whether a product is an e-money token, an asset-referenced token, a financial instrument or something else.
The EBA also recommends that tokenised financial instruments should remain subject to existing financial services legislation rather than MiCA.
The specific risks posed by third-country multi-issuer schemes
The EBA considers MiCA’s existing rules for issuers of asset-referenced and e-money tokens broadly appropriate. Its sharper concern is with so-called third-country multi-issuer schemes in which issuers inside and outside the EU jointly issue the same fungible token. One of the risks noted by the EBA is that where reserve asset requirements are not aligned across jurisdictions, issuers may arbitrage to invest the maximum possible in the most profitable assets. This may have the effect of misaligning the operational (including geographic) availability of assets vs redemption demand.
The EBA therefore invites the Commission to consider more legal clarity and stronger, dedicated safeguards for these multi-issuer schemes.
Interplay between MiCA and PSD3/PSR
The draft third payment service directive (PSD3) and Payment Services Regulation (PSR) will clarify when activities involving e-money tokens (also known as EMTs) also qualify as payment services. However, some new elements introduced during the legislative process and included in the compromise texts may give rise to interpretative questions in their practical application and supervision.
For example, PSR introduces a targeted amendment to Article 60 MiCA allowing payment institutions (PI) to provide crypto-asset services in relation to EMTs that are deemed equivalent to the payment services for which they are authorised, subject to a notification procedure rather than a separate crypto-asset service provider (CASP) authorization (the equivalence mechanism).
The EBA welcomes the proposed clarifications but sees a possible authorisation asymmetry. Under the proposed equivalence mechanism, a PI could provide certain e-money-token services after notification. Conversely, a CASP providing payment services would generally still need separate payment services authorisation.
Incidentally, the European System of Central Banks (ESCB) has also mentioned in its own response to the consultation paper that further clarification is needed with regard to the interaction between MiCA and PSD3/PSR. More specifically, the ESCB notes that clarification is needed regarding the regulatory treatment of intermediary arrangements, including agency models, outsourcing arrangements, sub-custody structures and other forms of partnerships and delegation tied to both the payment and crypto-asset services that are provided by CASPs and payment service providers. Moreover, both the EBA and the ESCB call for greater clarity on the protection of client funds where activities sit across both the MiCA and the PSD3/PSR regimes.
For integrated business models, the decisive question will be which activity requires the appropriate authorisation and which safeguarding rules for client funds apply.
Crypto lending may enter the scope of MiCA
Lending and borrowing crypto-assets are not currently listed as MiCA crypto-asset services. The EBA recommends assessing whether intermediation of these activities should be brought within MiCA and whether CASPs facilitating access to decentralized finance lending protocols should face specific requirements. Potential measures include risk disclosures, suitability checks and limits on leverage.
Clarification on own funds requirements and increased powers for the competent authority with regard to the regulation of own funds requirements
The EBA recommends that the European Commission takes steps to clarify the interplay between own funds requirements under MiCA and own funds requirements applicable for other types of financial services (e.g. where an entity is an issuer of an ART[1] or EMT and a CASP or other type of financial institution). The European Commission should by extension clarify whether requirements are to apply commensurately or cumulatively.
Whilst it does not suggest specific own funds requirements, the EBA also recommends that a new more risk-based calculation method be introduced, and that additional powers be granted to the competent authority to impose additional own funds requirements as deemed appropriate taking account of the individual business model of an entity.
Broad recommendation to establish clearer reporting requirements for issuers and for CASPs
The EBA remarked in its answers that MiCA does not provide a holistic mandate to establish reporting requirements for issuers of ARTs and EMTs and for CASPs. Indeed, the existing mandate for implementing technical standards under Article 22(7) MiCA is insufficient to impose reporting obligations with respect to all relevant data points (e.g. data for the purposes of assessing compliance with own funds and liquidity requirements as well as for the purposes of significance assessments).
The EBA thus recommends that any future reform of MiCA includes a comprehensive mandate(s) to establish cohesive reporting requirements for issuers and for CASPs.
What is next?
Although the consultation paper issued by the European Commission and the responses provided by the EBA do not provide certainty regarding the content of any future review of MiCA, the EBA’s remarks and suggestions certainly offer insight into the issues that are likely to be addressed by the European legislator.
Some of the EBA’s key recommendations, such as clarifying reporting requirements and establishing clearer rules on crypto lending, will most likely be incorporated into any amendments to MiCA.
Sources
EBA, response to the Commission’s MiCA review consultation, 24 September 2026: Full response (PDF)
ESCB, response to the Commission’s MiCA review consultation, September 2026, section 4.2, pp. 35–38: Full response (PDF)
[1] Asset-Referenced Token
