The European Banking Authority has published its response to the European Commission’s targeted consultation on the review of the Regulation on Markets in Crypto-assets (MiCA), calling for targeted legislative changes while assessing the core requirements for asset-referenced tokens and electronic money tokens as broadly appropriate. Its main priority is a dedicated regulatory and supervisory regime for third-country multi-issuer stablecoin schemes, which can transfer redemption, reserve and contagion risks into the European Union and enable regulatory arbitrage. The EBA also recommends reviewing minimum deposit requirements for issuer reserves without weakening liquidity and risk management safeguards. The EBA seeks clearer scope and definitions to reduce inconsistent crypto-asset classifications, product launch delays and opportunities for circumvention. It recommends keeping tokenised financial instruments under existing securities law, harmonising the definitions of financial instrument and deposit, regulating intermediated crypto-asset lending and access facilitated by crypto-asset service providers to decentralised finance lending protocols, and creating comprehensive reporting requirements for issuers and service providers. The assessment reflects limited experience under MiCA, with 39 electronic money tokens issued and no asset-referenced tokens authorised as of Sept. 1, 2026, and extends the EBA’s earlier calls for Level 1 amendments where technical standards cannot resolve gaps in the legislation.
2026-09-24European Banking Authority
European Banking Authority sets MiCA review priorities, calls for tougher multi-issuer stablecoin and crypto lending rules
The European Banking Authority has urged targeted changes to MiCA, led by stronger rules for third-country multi-issuer stablecoins and clearer crypto-asset classifications. It also recommends regulating crypto lending, including facilitated access to decentralised finance protocols, and improving issuer and service provider reporting. Existing stablecoin requirements are broadly appropriate, although reserve deposit rules should be reviewed without weakening liquidity safeguards.