MiCA review: What changes may the European Commission make to EU crypto rules?

MiCA Review: The EU is re-examining the regulatory framework for crypto assets-86 issues will determine the direction of future rules.

Since December 2024, the EU Cryptographic Asset Markets Regulation (MiCA) has been fully applied, aiming to replace the fragmented national systems of each member state with a unified set of rules, providing issuers and service providers with the final legal basis. However, in less than two years, the European Commission reopened the revision process of this regulation. A targeted consultation on the MiCA review will be launched on May 20, 2026. Interested respondents must submit feedback before September 30, 2026.

For you as a German investor, this is by no means an administrative notice from Brussels. The questionnaire asked: Should the interest ban on stablecoins be lifted? Should pledge services have exclusive rules? Should crypto lending be included in the scope of supervision? Are trading platforms easier or more difficult to obtain liquidity outside the EU? These key questions will determine what products a MiCA-regulated crypto exchange will have to offer you in two years.

First of all, it needs to be clear-because summaries are often easy to miss-that none of these changes have been decided. The committee is collecting opinions. This article will sort out the actual content of this document, its binding force and the real timetable behind it.

MiCA review data: 86 questions, four parts, one questionnaire

This consultation document comes from the European Commission's Directorate-General for Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Alliance and is dated May 20, 2026. The document contains 86 numbered questions, many of which have sub-questions and a rating scale ranging from 1 to 5. The committee clearly requires evidence: it is clearly stated in data, specific cases and legal basis as much as possible.

Only content submitted through online questionnaires will be counted. The document clearly states that only responses submitted through questionnaires will be included in the summary report. Emails sent to the mailbox of relevant units are only for consultation and cannot be a substitute for formal responses.

The four parts of the document

The consultation follows MiCA's own structure:

Part 1-Scope and Definitions (Part 2): What are crypto-assets under the regulation, how the white paper system works, and how marketing rules apply.

Part 2-Asset Reference Tokens and Electronic Currency Tokens (Parts 3 and 4): This is by far the longest section and covers regulatory requirements, reserves, classification as "significant", redemption rights, and interest bans.

Part 3-Crypto Asset Service Providers (Titles 5 and 6): Service Catalog, Own Funds, Multi-Function Groups, Reporting Obligations and Interaction with the Digital Operations Resilience Act (DORA) and the Revised Payment Services Directive.

Part 4-Content beyond the current scope: decentralized finance, pledges, crypto lending, non-homogeneous tokens.

A clause in the introduction reveals the policy direction. The committee hopes to take the opportunity to determine whether the administrative burden created by MiCA and its enforcement measures can be "simplified, reduced or eliminated entirely." At the same time, it reiterated the principle of technology neutrality, which states that regulation should not push market participants towards any particular technology.

MiCA Articles 140 and 142: Legal authorization behind consultation

This review is not a whim. MiCA has written the revised terms into text. Article 140 requires the Commission to submit a report on the implementation of the regulations; article 142 deals with market developments that were not covered when the regulations were adopted. This is the basis cited in the consultation document.

The second big point explains why Part 4 raises themes that do not appear in the 2023 MiCA text. Under Article 140, the Commission also introduced the European Banking Authority and the market regulator, the European Securities and Markets Authority.

The wording of the consultation page itself is critical to understanding the background: the report may be accompanied by a new legislative proposal to amend and supplement the regulation "where reasonable circumstances". Therefore, proposals are possible, but not commitments. It would be far-fetched to view the consultation as a definite reform.

Two circulating deadlines: the document says August 31, and the committee page says September 30

This is worthy of careful attention because both dates are from the same source but are different. The PDF consultation document dated May 20, 2026 requires responses to be submitted through an online questionnaire "no later than August 31, 2026". The committee's consultation page marks an extension notice at the top, and the key facts column lists the deadline as 23:59 Central European Daylight Time on September 30, 2026. The status display is "Opening" and the opening date is May 20, 2026.

Late dates on the web page are effective dates;PDF reflects the status at the time of publication. Practical consequences: The analysis of early summer 2026 is uniformly quoted on August 31. Anyone who relies on such summaries has a month delayed the date in mind.

Actual Respondents

The committee has described its target audience more narrowly: representatives of the digital asset industry, namely crypto asset service providers and issuers, and authorities such as national or European regulators, central banks and ministries of finance. Therefore, targeted consulting is aimed at a professional audience. On the same page, the committee also pointed to a related public consultation for a wider group. As a retail investor, you won't lose any enforceable rights if you miss September 30. The purpose of this article is to allow you to preview the rules you will use when trading in the future.

Part 1: Delineation of MiCA and MiFID boundaries on tokenized financial instruments

MiCA recognizes three categories: Asset Reference Tokens (ARTs), Electronic Currency Tokens (EMTs), and all other crypto assets. Any asset that meets the definition of a financial instrument falls within the scope of traditional securities law, covering MiFID, MiFIR, market abuse regulations and prospectus regulations. The consultation raised a fundamental question from the outset: whether this division should be retained, or whether all assets recorded on the blockchain should be included in MiCA.

The committee also asked which categories are the most difficult to classify in practice, and listed hybrid tokens, packaged assets, tokenized fund shares, tokenized money market instruments, governance tokens, synthetic positions, and assets marketed under the name of NFT but issued in series.

For you, this boundary issue has a very specific core: classification determines the level of protection of tokenized stocks and similar products that are already available on multiple platforms in the European Economic Area. Under Securities Law, prospectus requirements and investor protection rules apply, while MiCA does not have regulations in this form.

Interest bans in Articles 40 and 50: Question 20 puts the most important stablecoin rules under discussion

This text is why this consultation is attractive to retail investors. MiCA prohibits issuers, offerors and service providers from paying interest or any remuneration similar to interest on stablecoins. The ban is located in Article 40 on asset reference tokens and Article 50 on electronic currency tokens.

Question 20 is essentially a question: Should this ban be revised? Each token type offers two options, namely maintaining the ban or allowing interest-whether it is allowed unconditionally or under certain conditions. Anyone checking "Allow" must explain the reason.

What does this mean for your portfolio

As long as the ban remains, EU-issued euro or U.S. dollar stablecoins are purely a means of payment and settlement with no continuing benefits. Returns on current stablecoin balances are generated outside the issuer, through borrowing plans or investment strategies, each with risks and different tax treatments. If the ban is lifted, interest-paying stablecoins could become directly competing with instant access savings accounts and money market funds. This is the competition point raised by the committee in its question: the status of EU-issued stablecoins relative to profitable alternatives in other jurisdictions.

Reserves, minimum ratios of 30% and 60% and central bank account issues

The reserve component is more technical, but it determines the stability of stablecoins at critical moments. The committee asked whether the liquidity and reserve system for asset reference tokens should be relaxed, maintained or tightened. This involves reserve holding obligations, prescribed minimum shares of 30% and 60%, auditing and custody.

For e-money tokens issued by e-money institutions, the question is whether a bank deposit share of 30% to 60% is appropriate. Furthermore, the consultation explored three familiar basic elements of banking law: whether such issuers can deposit reserves directly with the central bank, whether they need their own disposal mechanisms, and whether liquidity assistance should be provided to them in emergencies.

The actual connection is simple: the closer the reserves are to the central bank's currency, the less impact they will have on redemptions when banks are in trouble.

Global stablecoins and multiple issuance models: What remains in the EU during a run

The most difficult part of geopolitics involves tokens that are circulating in multiple jurisdictions simultaneously and issued by different entities, but are technically the same token. The committee proposed a series of risks for assessment, including the risk of runs leading to the depletion of reserves within the EU, uneven distribution of reserves among countries, restrictions on cross-border transfers in times of crisis, regulatory arbitrage through unit swaps, and weaker regulatory standards. Third countries.

On the other hand, it tests the need for safeguards. Measures discussed include giving priority redemption rights for tokens actually circulating in the EU, limiting redemption to customers of EU-authorized service providers, implementing different crisis rights for retail and institutional holders, establishing dedicated liquidity buffers within the EU, and near-real-time reserve and liquidity reporting.

Two other questions demonstrate openness in the field: whether MiCA should introduce an equivalent system for global stablecoins, relying on foreign legal frameworks under certain conditions; and whether the current treatment of every e-money token denominated in EU currencies as a rule issued in the EU hinders the euro's international role.

Unauthorized Asset Reference Tokens (ART): Question 12 reveals the current state of the market

One of the few hard factual statements in the document appears in question 12. Nearly two years after implementation, the EU has not yet had an asset reference token authorized under MiCA. The committee asked whether this was due to a lack of market interest or the authorization and regulatory requirements themselves, and placed these two factors on a scoring scale.

Next comes the question: From the perspective of consumers and investors, what purpose should such tokens be used-as an investment, or as a means of payment and exchange? This is a fairly open approach for an institution that has created this category itself.

Part 3: Suitability testing of service providers and mobility access outside the EU

In the service providers section, the committee asked which services should be added to the MiCA catalog and what requirements should subsequently apply. One proposal directly affects you: Conduct appropriateness testing of order receipt and transmission, execution, and placement of crypto assets. You know something about this in the securities business, which means checking your knowledge and experience before trading a product type for the first time.

For groups that combine crypto services with other regulated or unregulated activities, the question is whether current governance is sufficient or whether group reporting, joint regulatory meetings or consolidated supervision is required.

The most important question for market structure is whether MiCA adequately provides EU consumers and investors access to trading and liquidity venues outside the EU, or excessively restricts such access. Anyone who finds a token that is thinly liquid or completely inaccessible at an EU provider understands the practical aspects of this problem. In addition, the consultation also asked whether the revision of the Payment Services Directive eliminated uncertainty about which encryption services are also payment services.

Part 4 and DeFi: What criteria should determine whether it is fully decentralized

MiCA exempts services provided in a fully decentralized manner without any intermediaries. What this means is not yet clear in the law. For the first time, the consultation provided a set of evaluation criteria and asked what characteristics would indicate that an application was not actually completely decentralized and should therefore be included in the scope of regulation.

The characteristics listed include: identifiable intermediaries, control through administrator keys, concentration of governance voting rights, custody of user assets, non-open source code, and protocol marketing by identifiable individuals or companies.

For agreements that pass this test, the committee asked in question 62 whether risk should be captured indirectly through regulated service providers. Options under discussion include service providers 'due diligence obligations for agreements involving their connection to customers, liability for certain incidents, and warning and disclosure obligations.

Smart contract certification: The most structurally ambitious proposal in the document

The most far-reaching idea is a certification program for decentralized applications. The document defines certification as evidence that an application is resistant to smart contract vulnerabilities and operational risks, and that it operates in a manner consistent with its public description.

Almost everything remains to be determined: whether such a plan should cover all MiCA services, be certified by private or public agencies, whether it only targets important agreements (such as measured by lock-in value), and whether regulated service providers should completely prohibit connecting their customers to uncertified agreements. If the last option is implemented, it will be the change most directly felt by users when entering decentralized applications from regulated exchanges.

Pledges, crypto lending and NFT: Three areas where there are no exclusive rules in MiCA

Question 66 asks whether the current practice of not separately regulating pledge services is appropriate, and if not, what requirements should apply to providers. Currently, pledge services are mainly captured through general custody and organizational obligations. Question 67 turns to crypto lending, and the committee wants to know whether this area should be regulated and on what elements such regulation should be based. For non-homogeneous tokens, the question is simpler: Does the current state of the NFT market justify the need to regulate service providers? Under MiCA Article 2 (3), unique and non-homogeneous crypto assets have so far been excluded.

Why do these three points fall into the same category?

Pledges, loans and collectibles transactions are the areas where European investors currently operate most frequently outside regulated areas. If they are included, investor protection will be improved, while some current services will disappear from European markets. The committee itself addressed this trade-off in its introduction, tying the level of protection with the EU's international competitiveness.

Prediction markets, perpetual contracts and tokenized deposits: gaps since 2023

Section 4.4 of the document mentions two developments that had not yet reached this scale at the time of MiCA's adoption: blockchain-based prediction markets and trading volume of perpetual contracts for crypto-assets. The committee asked whether forecast markets present opportunities or risks for EU consumers, and whether they should fall under MiFID or MiCA. It also raises the same classification problem for perpetual contracts.

For tokenized deposits-a digital representation of commercial bank balances-the problem lies in the interaction with bank supervision laws and deposit guarantee programs. For depositors, this has the broadest impact because it defines the boundary between bank balances and crypto instruments.

What the MiCA review means for you as a German investor

Several sober conclusions can be drawn from the list of issues. First of all: None of this will change your legal status at the moment. The regulation still applies and your provider continues to operate under the rules under which it was authorized.

Second: The direction of the debate is clearly divided between two factions. In terms of scope, the trend is expanding as DeFi, pledges, lending, forecast markets and perpetual contracts are all under review. In terms of the obligations of regulated providers, simplification is on the agenda, clearly titled "Cutting Red Tape."

Third: There are two points that are practical to your portfolio. The interest ban determines whether interest-paying stablecoins will emerge in the EU from regulated issuers. The issue of accessing liquidity outside the EU will help determine the breadth of products traded on European platforms in the future.

How to identify reliable reports on this topic

With a large number of articles about MiCA reform expected to appear in the coming weeks, a simple check would be helpful. Note whether an article distinguishes issues in the consultation document from the committee's decisions. Statements such as "the EU will allow stablecoins to pay interest in the future" have no basis at this stage. The only basis is that the committee is asking about the option. The second checkpoint is the deadline: Anyone who still quotes August 31, 2026 is relying on the original document.

Timetable: From questionnaires to reports to possible legislative proposals

The next path follows regulations and the usual Brussels process. The response phase lasts until September 30, 2026. The committee then evaluates the feedback and issues a response that is approved to be made public. Based on these materials, reports under Articles 140 and 142 will be produced, in which the European Banking Authority and the European Securities and Markets Authority will participate.

Legislative proposals will be introduced only when the report is out and the committee considers action necessary-if any. Proposals then go through the ordinary legislative process of Parliament and Council before a transition period begins. From today's consultation to revised rules, the realistic path will take years. This consultation is an early indicator, not an instruction, for your investment decisions this year.

One-sentence summary of information sources

All information here is derived from the European Commission's consultation document and accompanying key facts; the 86 questions and four-part framework is consistent with the analysis of law firm Freshfields dated June 5, 2026, but the analysis still cited old deadlines.

MiCA Review: Key Points

Distinguish issues and decisions. Everything you read in the coming months about the relaxation of stablecoin interest rates or the regulation of the DeFi protocol is currently just one option in the questionnaire. Therefore, please evaluate your continuing income in accordance with current laws.

Pay attention to the source of your current income. Since the stablecoins themselves do not allow interest generation, each return comes from additional transactions, each with counterparty risk. Anyone lending out the balance should be aware of the terms and collateral.

Keep records clear. If the framework changes, reporting paths and documentation obligations will also change. A complete record of your purchases, sales and revenue. Spend a little effort today and save a lot of trouble in the future.

(As of August 18, 2026. This article does not constitute investment advice. Price and fee structures may change; please confirm terms with your provider before purchasing.)