European Commission Launches MiCAR Review

On 20 May 2026, the European Commission (Commission) launched a targeted consultation on the operation of the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCAR) which will feed into reports the Commission is mandated to prepare under MiCAR.

In parallel, the Commission launched a wider public consultation on the topic. Both consultations close on 31 August 2026. This briefing focuses on the targeted consultation.

Although MiCAR has only been fully applicable to crypto-asset service providers (CASPs) since 30 December 2024, the Commission is already assessing whether the framework remains fit for purpose given accelerating institutional adoption of digital assets and significant changes in the wider international regulatory landscape.

The review is also being conducted under the umbrella of the Commission’s simplification agenda, which is intended to reduce regulatory burden and support EU competitiveness in digital finance.

Background

MiCAR introduced a harmonised EU framework for crypto-assets, asset-referenced tokens (ARTs) and e-money tokens (EMTs), as well as for their issuers and CASPs. The rules for stablecoin issuers have applied since 30 June 2024, while the broader regime, including those governing CASPs, took effect from 30 December 2024.

Since MiCAR was finalised, the wider digital-assets market has evolved significantly. Traditional financial institutions and asset managers have increased their engagement with tokenised assets and DLT-based market infrastructures, policy approaches to stablecoins in other major jurisdictions have shifted, and decentralised finance has continued to develop. Against this backdrop, the Commission is assessing whether MiCAR’s framework remains appropriately calibrated.

Two further points of scope are worth noting at the outset. First, the Commission has indicated that issues at the interface between MiCAR and the payment services framework have already been largely addressed through the recent review of the Payment Services Directive and are therefore not the primary focus of this exercise. Second, supervisory arrangements for CASPs sit outside the scope of this consultation; they are being addressed separately through the EU’s Markets Integration and Supervision Package.

Key areas under review

The consultation is broad in scope. Some key themes for stablecoin issuers, CASPs and other affected stakeholders include:

• Scope and definitions: The Commission is asking whether crypto-assets qualifying as financial instruments under MiFID II should continue to be governed by sectoral legislation, or whether all assets recorded and transacted on distributed ledgers and which meet the definition of a ‘crypto-asset’ should be regulated under MiCAR. Tokenised fund interests and tokenised money-market instruments are amongst those assets which are considered as hard to classify under the existing perimeter.
• Capital requirements for issuers of EMTs and ARTs: The consultation seeks feedback on whether capital requirements for stablecoin issuers are appropriately calibrated.
• Reasons for no issuance of ARTs: The Commission notes that no ART has been issued in the EU since MiCAR became applicable to stablecoins and asks whether this is due to low market interest in ARTs or other reasons (e.g. licensing or regulatory requirements applicable to ARTs).
• Prohibition on interest or interest-equivalent remuneration on EMTs and ARTs: MiCAR currently prohibits issuers, offerors and CASPs from granting interest, or any interest-equivalent remuneration, on EMTs (Art 50) and ARTs (Article 40). The consultation asks whether that prohibition should be modified, in whole or under defined conditions and if so under what conditions. This is one of the more commercially significant questions in the review.
• Criteria for classifying EMTs and ARTs as ‘significant’: The Commission invites feedback on whether the current quantitative and qualitative criteria for classifying EMTs and ARTs as ‘significant’ (which triggers enhanced regulatory requirements) should be adjusted.
• Multi-issuance and equivalence regime for global/third-country stablecoins: A substantial portion of the consultation deals with global/third country stablecoins and multi-issuance arrangements, including the EU establishment requirement, the location of reserves, redemption rights of EU holders and whether an equivalence regime for global/third-country stablecoins should be introduced and if so under what conditions. This is the area most exposed to recent international developments, including stablecoin legislation in the United States.
• CASPs: The Commission notes that at the date of launch of the consultation, the ESMA public register recorded in the region of 170 authorised CASPs across 18 Member States (12 of which are authorised by the Central Bank of Ireland (Central Bank)) and the consultation invites views on whether the existing prudential requirements (e.g. minimum capital requirements) and certain other regulatory requirements applicable to CASPs is properly calibrated.
• DeFi, staking, lending and non-fungible tokens (NFTs): The Commission is seeking feedback on a range of possible interventions in this area including:
  • whether CASPs facilitating client interaction with DeFi protocols should be required to carry out due diligence on those protocols;
  • whether a certification regime for DeFi protocols and/or smart contracts (or a sub-set of these) should be introduced; and
  • whether bespoke regulatory requirements should be introduced for staking, lending, and/or borrowing of crypto-assets and for NFT-related services that currently sit outside the MiCAR perimeter.
• Prediction markets and perpetual futures: The consultation asks whether DLT-based prediction markets and perpetual futures on crypto-assets should be regulated under MiFID II or under MiCAR and what substantive requirements should apply to providers. This is a notable potential expansion of the regulatory perimeter.
• Tokenised deposits: The consultation treats digital representations of traditional commercial bank deposits recorded on a blockchain or distributed ledger as a discrete topic. It explores use cases across retail payments, settlement of tokenised securities, intraday liquidity and delivery-versus-payment, and asks whether constraints on uptake in the EU should be addressed at regulatory level. This is highly relevant to authorised credit institutions, including those in Ireland.
• Legal treatment of tokens: A significant part of the consultation focuses on ownership, custody, collateral, insolvency treatment and enforceability of rights in tokenised assets, and whether EU-level harmonisation is required to support development of tokenisation markets.

Why this consultation matters for Irish firms

Ireland has emerged as one of the most successful jurisdictions for securing authorisation of CASPs under MiCAR and the Central Bank has built up substantial experience in the assessment of CASP applications. Ireland also has a disproportionately large number of authorised EMIs (which may potentially issue EMTs). Ireland also has very successful funds sector. The outcome of the Commission’s review is therefore of direct relevance to Irish firms already authorised or in the process of securing authorisation.

Five considerations stand out:

1. Irish-authorised e-money institutions (EMIs) considering EMT issuance should pay particular attention to Questions 15, 16 and 25 of the consultation, which ask for feedback on current reserve assets/liquidity requirements applicable to EMIs issuing EMTs, whether credit institutions issuing EMTs should also be subject to reserve asset requirements appliable to non-bank EMT issuers and whether enhanced monetary and financial safeguards (e.g. a dedicated resolution regime) should be established for EMTs issued by EMIs.
2. Tokenised fund interests are expressly flagged in the consultation as a borderline regulatory classification case. Given the scale of the Irish funds industry, the outcome of the scope debate (whether tokenised fund interests should fall under MiCAR or remain under MiFID II and the AIFMD/UCITS framework) is a material consideration for Irish-domiciled asset managers exploring tokenisation.
3. Firms whose business models touch on areas outside MiCAR’s current perimeter, including staking, lending, DeFi-related services and NFTs, should pay close attention to the consultation given the focus on potential expansion of scope of MiCAR to bring activities currently sitting outside the regulatory perimeter inside the regulatory perimeter.
4. Issuers and prospective issuers of stablecoins will want to consider whether the prudential, reserve and prohibition of interest or interest-equivalent remuneration rules should be revisited particularly given different approaches in jurisdictions outside the EU/EEA.
5. The Commission invites feedback on the reasons for the absence of any ART issuance in the EU since MiCAR became applicable and whether the root cause relates to the regulatory regime in the EU/EEA.

The Central Bank has separately confirmed that the ESMA Guidelines on knowledge and competence for CASP staff will be incorporated into the Minimum Competency Code from 28 July 2026. The MiCAR review and that domestic supervisory layer will together shape the operating environment for Irish-authorised CASPs over the next 12 to 18 months.

Reading the direction of travel

Taken as a whole, the review suggests that the Commission is moving beyond viewing MiCAR purely as a stand-alone crypto-assets framework. It is increasingly being considered alongside MiFID II, the DLT Pilot Regime and the wider tokenisation agenda, with the aim of producing a more coherent regulatory regime for digital assets across the EU financial markets ecosystem. Firms operating in this space should expect a more integrated regulatory architecture to emerge from the review, rather than a wholesale rewrite of MiCAR itself.

Next steps

Responses to both consultations must be submitted via the Commission’s online questionnaire by 31 August 2026. Crypto-asset issuers, CASPs and other affected stakeholders should consider whether to submit a response, either directly or through industry bodies, on the issues most relevant to their business. The responses will inform the Commission’s reports of the Commission under Articles 140 and 142 of MiCAR which may shape proposals for future amending legislation.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.