MiCA developments: regulation, innovation, and Europe’s digital asset ambition

Kristina Budryte-Ridard, Managing Director, James Padgett, Senior Director, and Ondřej Kovařík, Senior Advisor at FTI Consulting, discuss why the financial sector should get involved in the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA) consultation. 

Europe’s next digital asset rulebook is currently being written, and the financial sector now has the chance to shape it. The European Commission’s consultation on the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA) closes at the end of September, and the responses it receives (or not) will determine the EU’s framework for the next decade. For those considering whether to respond, the consultation offers an opportunity to comment on individual provisions, but more importantly, to influence the direction of travel. 

Initially, MiCA’s review was to focus on areas that it does not currently address, namely decentralised finance (DeFi), staking and lending, and non-fungible tokens (NFTs). This narrower approach was reinforced by the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) and the European Banking Authority (EBA), which recommended focusing almost exclusively on DeFi. However, the Commission has taken a broader view, and the consultation covers all areas of the existing framework, alongside emerging areas such as distributed ledger technology (DLT)-based prediction markets and perpetual futures on crypto assets. 

This broader scope reflects the market’s quick evolution since MiCA entered into force in 2022. It also shows the regulation’s growing intersection with wider EU policy priorities, specifically the Savings and Investments Union (SIU), the potential of tokenisation, the strategic implications of stablecoin multi-issuance, and the increasing interconnectedness of crypto-asset service providers (CASPs) with the broader financial services ecosystem. The involvement of Commissioner for Financial Services Maria Luís Albuquerque has added further political weight to the review. 

The political landscape: where the scope of the MiCA review will be decided

The Commission has approached the MiCA review as a measured, technical exercise, but the politics surrounding it are proving less predictable. 

In April 2026, the European Central Bank (ECB) argued that MiCA does not permit the multi-issuance of stablecoins. The European Systemic Risk Board (ESRB) reached the same conclusion, as has ECB President Christine Lagarde, who has repeatedly pointed this out publicly. Whatever the outcome, it establishes an important political boundary around what the Commission can propose without creating a significant institutional dispute. The European Parliament will be equally important, as its Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee (ECON) is led by Aurore Lalucq (S&D, France), who was instrumental in securing MiCA’s harder regulatory advantage and remains consistently a crypto sceptic. Her position on stablecoins aligns particularly closely with the ECB’s, putting her in a strong position to bring the issue into negotiations once a legislative proposal reaches Parliament. 

Clear parallels with the original MiCA negotiations are visible: those negotiations saw considerable parliamentary energy on proposals to ban proof-of-work and restrict self-hosted wallets. Given its importance to the market, stablecoin multi-issuance cannot be wished away, but political appetite for restrictions is growing.

The risk is that stablecoins become the dominant political issue at the expense of other questions that could prove equally consequential. DeFi perimeter, staking and lending, the overlap with the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID), tokenisation, and legal certainty around tokens remain open issues in the consultation, and each could materially reshape the EU market.

Although counterweights within Parliament exist, they will require clear evidence and a coordinated industry position to be effective, and political support will depend on market feedback. Those seeking to influence MiCA’s review need to demonstrate, with evidence, where the existing framework works, where it creates unnecessary friction, and where changes could improve outcomes without undermining its core objectives. 

Member States have similarly diverse approaches. France has authorised four e-money token issuers, the most of any Member State, and its regulator has a pragmatic, practical position, even as the political one remains cautious. Germany, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, and Ireland are emerging as the principal jurisdictions for CASP authorisation. The Baltics are also significant: as established fintech centres, their finance ministries are likely to counterweight any parliamentary push for a more restrictive framework.

As a result, the scope of the MiCA review, and the legislative proposal expected in 2027, will be determined by the interests, evidence, and political influence brought by those who feel protected or exposed by the framework.

Why should crypto firms respond to the MiCA consultation?

Consultations are the starting point for legislative overhaul, a role that is often underestimated. In a review as broad as this one, the potential risk is that some issues receive insufficient attention or disappear from the agenda altogether. 

For the crypto industry, engagement is therefore particularly important, as the MiCA consultation opens virtually every relevant element of the regulation for discussion. The white paper regime, prudential calibration for asset-referenced tokens (ARTs) and e-money tokens (EMTs), the multi-issuance model, the CASP authorisation perimeter, staking, lending and borrowing, and NFTs are all in scope. The Commission is also asking whether MiCA should be extended to financial instruments, reopening a foundational design choice. 

The firms best suited to inform the debate have already experienced MiCA. Having absorbed the authorisation cost and complexity, they can identify what works, what is disproportionate, and where the rulebook creates friction without regulatory benefits. Therefore, their experience needs to be translated into concrete, evidence-based proposals. Without it, stakeholders with different priorities could shape simplification efforts, while implementation challenges that could be addressed now risk becoming framework features. 

Similarly, the consultation should not be considered in isolation. The Market Infrastructure and Supervision Package (MISP) includes a proposal to transfer supervisory competences over CASPs from national competent authorities (NCAs) to ESMA, and fully centralise supervision. This adds another aspect to the debate over the future supervisory architecture. 

The DeFi and wallet provisions are just as significant. Part 4.1 asks whether CASPs should bear due diligence or liability when connecting clients to DeFi protocols, whether certification schemes should apply to protocols and smart contracts, and whether non-custodial wallet software should itself require certification. 

The un-hosted wallet provisions raise another possibility: restricting MiCA redemption rights to clients of EU-authorised CASPs, which could have real implications for businesses built around self-custody. 

Stablecoins are another obvious pressure point. The multi-issuance model that allows USDT, USDC, and other global tokens to circulate in the EU is explicitly under review, alongside a proposed equivalence regime for non-EU issuers. 

In this review, crypto firms, while stakeholders, are also among the few participants able to provide direct, operational evidence of how MiCA works. They are also likely to be among the most exposed to any punitive developments, whether consequences are intentional or not. 

Why should traditional finance respond to the MiCA consultation?

The MiCA review may directly impact crypto firms, but its implications extend well beyond the sector. Traditional financial institutions have a clear interest in several of the consultation’s central questions, and their input will be critical if the Commission is to design a framework that reflects how the market develops. 

Stablecoins are perhaps the clearest example. They are increasingly likely to feature in banks’, asset managers’, and payment institutions’ activities as products they issue or distribute, treasury and settlement tools, or assets to which they are counterparties. 

The consultation’s questions on prudential calibration, reserve composition, redemption rights, the multi-issuance model, and potential equivalence regimes for non-EU issuers will help determine euro-denominated stablecoin economics and the conditions under which dollar-denominated tokens can circulate in the EU. 

The emergence of agentic AI adds to the consultation’s relevance. Autonomous agents are already driving stablecoin transaction flows for machine-to-machine payments and on-chain settlement, with dollar-denominated tokens benefiting from this in particular. As these use cases mature, the trend is likely to accelerate. 

All this makes traditional financial services input more important. Without it, the framework risks being calibrated primarily around the experience of native crypto firms and fails to capture the institutional use cases that also shape the market. 

A second area where traditional financial firms should engage is the consultation’s first question, which reopens the foundational MiCA-MiFID perimeter. Specifically, it asks whether crypto-assets that qualify as financial instruments, including tokenised financial instruments, should fall within MiCA’s scope. With the growing momentum of financial instruments tokenisation, this could become one of the review’s most consequential questions. 

Extending MiCA to tokenised financial instruments would likely require investor protection standards to mirror MiFID. It could also create parallel venue regimes for the same economic instrument, with potential secondary effects for the DLT Pilot Regime, Market Abuse Regulation (MAR), and Central Securities Depositary Regulation (CSDR), as well as practical implications for financial instruments liquidity. 

Traditional financial firms are therefore natural interoperability counterparts for the Commission. The review allows the sector to make its case and to ensure that MiCA’s next iteration reflects the growing integration of digital assets into the wider financial system. 

MiCA consultation next steps: what to expect and when

The European Commission published its MiCA consultation on 20 May 2026, and responses are due by 30 September 2026. At the same time, the Commission has launched a public consultation to assess EU consumers’ awareness of digital assets and associated services. 

The outputs from both consultations will feed into the MiCA review, due by 30 June 2027, and likely to include legislative proposals. Therefore, the consultation is the first stage of a process that will extend well beyond 2026. 

The political timetable is also relevant, with European Parliament elections scheduled for May 2029 creating an implicit deadline for the co-legislators to conclude negotiations. If the schedule remains, the revised regime could come into effect starting in 2030. 

For market participants, the window to shape MiCA development is open now, but it will not remain so indefinitely. Prioritise engaging with the Commission’s consultation, identify the provisions that matter most to the business, and support proposed changes with practical, evidence-based arguments.

The 2027 review will determine what the Commission puts forward, while the negotiations that follow will determine what ultimately becomes law. By the time those debates reach their final stages, many of the most important choices will already have been made. 

MiCA is at an important developmental stage, and firms should cease questioning whether the framework will evolve and focus on how to help determine its evolution. 

About the authors

	Kristina Budryte-Ridard Managing Director Kristina.budryte@fticonsulting.com Kristina is a public affairs expert with experience advising boards, CEOs, and senior executives on EU policy, regulatory, and geopolitical developments. She brings extensive expertise in financial services policy and advocacy. She has prior experience at the European Commission and law firms.
	James Padgett Senior Director James.padgett@fticonsulting.com James is a specialist in digital finance, fintech, and digital assets. He brings extensive expertise in advocacy with policymakers and regulators at the national, European, and international level. He previously ran the secretariat of the European Fintech Association and led Allianz’s engagement on digital policy.
	Ondřej Kovařík Senior Advisor Ondrej.kovarik@fticonsulting.com Ondřej was a Member of the European Parliament from 2019 to 2025. He was a member of the Economic and Monetary Affairs committee, where his work focused on digital finance. He chaired the Access to Finance for SMEs working group and had a leading role on MiCA.

About FTI Consulting

FTI Consulting is a global business advisory firm providing multidisciplinary solutions to complex challenges. It has a worldwide network of over 6,600 employees across 29 countries, spanning six continents. FTI Strategic Communications helps companies around the world manage change, mitigate risk, and enhance their market position.