From Capitol Hill to Brussels: Lessons from the CLARITY Act for Europe's MiCA regime

Erwin SOTIRI
2 days ago
19 min read

Two regulatory constitutions in the making

In the spring of 2025, Washington and Brussels found themselves engaged in a rare act of near-simultaneous legislative ambition. On 29 May 2025, bipartisan leaders in the United States Congress introduced the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act of 2025 (the "CLARITY Act"), a sweeping piece of legislation designed to end years of jurisdictional warfare between the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). Across the Atlantic, the European Union's own landmark framework — the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA or MiCAR), formally Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 — had already become fully applicable as of 30 December 2024, capping a multi-year legislative effort that many hailed as the world's first comprehensive crypto regulatory regime.

The timing was not coincidental. As one analysis notes, in January 2026, as draft versions of the U.S. Senate's Digital Asset Market Clarity Act began circulating, officials in Brussels were reviewing the first-year implementation assessment of MiCA — a coincidence that marked a shift from early exploration and warnings toward systematic institutional construction. These are not merely two parallel pieces of legislation. They are, two competing digital constitutions — each embedding a distinct set of values and governance philosophies into the foundational code of the next-generation financial system.

Part I: The CLARITY Act — architecture and ambitions

A long-awaited answer to regulatory paralysis

The CLARITY Act did not emerge in a vacuum. For nearly a decade, the U.S. digital asset industry operated in a state of regulatory purgatory, where enforcement actions substituted for rulemaking and where agency turf battles — most notably between the SEC and the CFTC — generated more litigation than legal certainty. The SEC's aggressive enforcement posture under the Howey Test, applied to tokens through a series of inconsistent court rulings — including contradictory outcomes in SEC v. Ripple Labs and SEC v. Terraform Labs — made it structurally impossible for developers, exchanges, and institutional investors to plan with confidence.

The CLARITY Act, introduced by House Committee on Financial Services Chairman French Hill, represents the legislative culmination of this frustration. The House passed the bill with a notable 294-134 bipartisan vote on 17 July 2025, and the Senate Agriculture Committee advanced a core component, the Digital Commodity Intermediaries Act, in a 12-11 vote on 29 January 2026. While full Senate passage remains pending as of the date of this publication, the trajectory is clear: comprehensive U.S. digital asset legislation is no longer a question of if but of when.

A functional, three-category classification system

The CLARITY Act's most consequential innovation is the replacement of the decades-old, securities-law-derived Howey Test with a functional, decentralisation-based classification methodology. Under this framework, all digital assets fall into one of three primary categories:

Digital commodities — digital assets intrinsically linked to a blockchain system whose value derives from use of that blockchain. These fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the CFTC in spot markets.
Investment contract assets — digital assets sold as part of an investment scheme, retaining the character of a traditional security and remaining subject to SEC oversight.
Permitted payment stablecoins — a distinct category addressed primarily through the companion GENIUS Act (signed into law by President Trump in July 2025), requiring 100% reserve backing with U.S. dollars or short-term Treasury instruments.

This tripartite model resolves the single most litigated question in U.S. crypto regulation: which agency governs which asset? The answer is no longer a matter for courts to determine after the fact, but a statutory bright line drawn before any enforcement action begins.

The "Mature Blockchain System" Concept: A Dynamic Transition Pathway

Perhaps the most intellectually elegant element of the CLARITY Act is the concept of a "Mature Blockchain System" — a blockchain system, together with its related digital commodity, that is "not controlled by any person or group of persons under common control". This definition is not a static label but a lifecycle mechanism: blockchain projects may formally declare their intent to achieve Mature Blockchain System status within four years of launch, creating a structured transition from SEC (investment contract) regulation to CFTC (commodity) oversight as the project progressively eliminates central control.

To achieve Mature Blockchain System status, a network must demonstrate decentralised governance, open participation, transparent operations, and independence of validators from any controlling entity. Based on these criteria, networks such as Bitcoin, Ethereum, Litecoin, Dogecon, Tezos, and Cosmos have been assessed as likely to qualify, while networks with more concentrated governance structures — including, at the time of the Act's passage, Solana and Cardano — presented more ambiguous cases. The significance for innovators is profound: the CLARITY Act incentivises decentralisation as a compliance objective, aligning legal form with technical substance in a way that no prior securities law framework had achieved.

DeFi safe harbors: Protecting the builders

Section 601 of the CLARITY Act introduces Exchange Act §15H, creating explicit statutory safe harbors for blockchain developers and non-custodial participants. Under this provision, a person is not subject to Exchange Act registration requirements solely because they:

relay or validate transactions on distributed ledger networks;
operate nodes, oracles, or bandwidth infrastructure;
develop, publish, or maintain distributed ledger technology systems; or
create or distribute self-custody tools, including non-custodial wallets.

The Act further exempts non-custodial protocol participants — developers, validators, and similarly situated parties — from CFTC and SEC registration, focusing regulatory obligations instead on entities that exercise control over user assets, act as counterparties, or facilitate settlement or liquidity provision for compensation. A statutory safe harbour for self-custody wallets is also created, explicitly preempting any future FinCEN or Treasury rule that would prohibit their lawful use — a pointed response to a 2020 FinCEN proposal that had threatened to impose KYC requirements on unhosted wallet withdrawals.

For DeFi protocols and their legal advisers, these provisions provide a degree of certainty that no existing regulatory framework — European or American — had hitherto offered. The CLARITY Act draws the line not at decentralisation as a philosophical ideal, but at custody and control as the operative legal threshold.

Part II: MiCA — Strengths, innovations, and structural limits

The world's first comprehensive crypto regulation

MiCA's historical significance should not be understated. Adopted by the European Parliament on 20 April 2023 and entering full application in two phases — stablecoin (ART and EMT) provisions from 30 June 2024, and the full CASP and broader crypto-asset regime from 30 December 2024 — MiCA became the world's first comprehensive, legally binding framework for the crypto-asset markets. It covers participants across the crypto ecosystem: issuers, trading platforms, exchanges, and custodian wallet providers.

MiCA's philosophical foundations rest on twin pillars of risk prevention and consumer protection. Spanning more than 400 pages, the regulation establishes unified issuance, trading, and custody rules for virtually all crypto-assets not covered by existing EU financial law, applying a logic familiar from MiFID II: before innovation is permitted to flourish, a sufficiently robust institutional gatekeeping structure must first be established.

Passporting: MiCA's crown jewel

The centrepiece of MiCA's commercial appeal is its EU-wide passporting framework. A CASP authorised in one EU member state may offer crypto-asset services across all 27 member states without obtaining separate authorisations in each jurisdiction. This eliminates the regulatory fragmentation that had previously forced exchanges and custodians to navigate a patchwork of 27 distinct national licensing regimes. Physical presence in host states is not required; cross-border notifications are managed through the home National Competent Authority (NCA) and ESMA.

In capital terms, the authorisation thresholds are deliberately calibrated: CASPs must demonstrate prudential capital levels ranging from EUR 50,000 to EUR 150,000 depending on the services provided. This represents a meaningful but not prohibitive barrier, designed to admit serious market participants while screening out undercapitalised operators. The practical result is that the EU single market — some 450 million consumers — becomes accessible through a single regulatory touch point.

Stablecoin regulation: Rigorous but asymmetric

MiCA establishes two distinct stablecoin regimes: Asset-Referenced Tokens (ARTs), pegged to baskets of assets, currencies, or commodities, subject to EBA oversight and requiring authorisation from the issuer's home NCA; and E-Money Tokens (EMTs), pegged to a single fiat currency, regulated as a sub-category of electronic money under the supervision of the EBA, with issuance restricted to credit institutions or electronic money institutions.

The EMT regime in particular is notably strict. Issuers must hold at least 30% of reserve funds in a separate account with a credit institution, with the remainder invested in secure, low-risk, highly liquid instruments. The practical consequences have been dramatic: USDT (Tether), the world's dominant stablecoin, was delisted from major EU-regulated exchanges by early 2025 following ESMA's guidance requiring CASPs to restrict services for non-MiCA-compliant ARTs and EMTs no later than Q1 2025. Euro-denominated stablecoins such as EURC and EURS saw corresponding surges in adoption.

Classification architecture: Asset-type, not function

MiCA categorises crypto-assets by type: utility tokens, asset-referenced tokens (ARTs), and e-money tokens (EMTs). Crypto-assets that meet the definition of transferable securities or other financial instruments under existing EU financial law (MiFID II, the Prospectus Regulation) fall outside MiCA's scope and remain subject to those regimes. This approach provides significant structural clarity for stablecoin issuers and traditional token offerings. However, unlike the CLARITY Act's dynamic, decentralisation-based classification, MiCA's taxonomy is static and form-driven: it asks what a token is by reference to its contractual structure and reserve mechanism, not what a blockchain network has become by reference to its governance evolution.

Part III: Where the gaps are — A critical assessment of MiCA's open questions

The DeFi blind spot

If MiCA has an Achilles heel, it is decentralised finance. Recitals 22 and 94 of MiCA establish that the regulation applies only to natural and legal persons, and to activities directly or indirectly controlled by such persons. Crypto-asset services that are fully decentralised and involve no intermediaries fall outside the regulatory framework. On its face, this exclusion appears sensible: you cannot impose a licensing obligation on a smart contract.

In practice, however, the exclusion creates a category of profound and expanding ambiguity. Most DeFi platforms involve some degree of centralisation — through governance tokens, development team influence, protocol upgrade mechanisms, or user-facing interfaces. The critical legal question of what constitutes "fully decentralised" is left undefined in the regulation, and the case-by-case approach this necessitates provides little forward legal certainty to builders, validators, or liquidity providers. As a result, DeFi protocols operating in genuine grey zones either self-certify their way to an exclusion or — as an increasing number have done — relocate development activity to more permissive jurisdictions.

The ESMA and EBA have since been tasked with producing a comprehensive report on DeFi in Europe, covering crypto lending, borrowing, and staking, with the goal of informing future regulatory proposals. That DeFi accounts for approximately 4% of the global crypto-asset market, with EU adoption higher than the global average, makes the current regulatory lacuna all the more consequential.

NFTs: Between exclusion and uncertainty

MiCA's treatment of non-fungible tokens is similarly incomplete. The regulation generally excludes NFTs representing unique digital art or collectibles from its scope. However, it applies a substance-over-form approach: NFTs issued in large series, fractionalized, or marketed in ways that imply fungibility may fall within MiCA's ambit. The boundary between a genuinely unique digital artwork and a fractionalized collectible-series is, in practice, determined by the issuer's own characterisation, subject to retroactive regulatory challenge.

The European Commission has acknowledged the gap and is expected to assess developments in NFTs as part of any future MiCA review. But the absence of clear statutory guidance leaves issuers of innovative digital assets — generative NFT collections, tokenised real-world assets represented as NFTs, and gaming assets — operating under persistent legal uncertainty.

Regulatory Arbitrage: The passporting problem's shadow

MiCA's passporting system is, as noted above, one of its most commercially attractive features. But the architecture of the passporting regime — which requires CASPs to obtain authorisation from a single home NCA before passporting across the bloc — has, paradoxically, introduced a new form of regulatory arbitrage. Because implementation of MiCA at the national level has been uneven, crypto firms have learned to shop for the most accommodating home jurisdiction.

The divergence is striking. Malta has been observed attracting licence applications at an accelerated pace relative to its supervisory capacity, while Czechia reportedly received over 240 MiCA applications yet granted only a handful of licences by late 2025, creating a licensing bottleneck. Lithuania's grandfathering period ended on 31 December 2025, triggering exits and corporate restructurings, with some firms migrating to Poland as a transitional measure. Germany, the Netherlands, and Malta led in the number of CASP licences issued by mid-2025, while Central and Eastern European regulators lagged considerably.

As one industry expert observed, "crypto firms registered or authorised in different EU member states may be subject to different requirements" during transitional periods, and "some [NCAs] may not even be well-resourced enough to adequately supervise authorised CASPs". This structural inconsistency risks undermining the very level playing field MiCA was designed to create.

The "Enforcement-first" legacy vs. statutory certainty

A final and underappreciated structural difference between the EU and U.S. frameworks is their default regulatory culture. MiCA, as EU financial regulation, operates within an administrative law tradition that relies heavily on delegated acts, ESMA technical standards, Q&As, and supervisory guidance to flesh out statutory obligations. While this is consistent with EU legislative technique, it means that significant operational questions — from the precise capital treatment of reserve assets to the scope of marketing obligations — are answered not in the regulation itself but in instruments produced months or years after the primary text takes effect.

The CLARITY Act, by contrast, addresses a domestic enforcement culture characterised by what one commentator called "years of regulatory disputes that have often resulted in litigation," driven by agencies that "opted for enforcement actions instead of formal rulemaking". The Act's drafters responded by embedding considerable statutory specificity — bright-line definitions, explicit safe harbours, mandated joint rulemaking timelines — precisely to prevent the regulation from becoming a litigation trap rather than a planning tool. For European legislators reviewing MiCA, this emphasis on upfront statutory certainty over subsequent administrative elaboration carries genuine lessons.

Part IV: Lessons from Capitol Hill — What Brussels can learn

Lesson 1: Define "decentralisation" in statute

The CLARITY Act's "Mature Blockchain System" concept is far from perfect. Its criteria — no entity controlling more than 20% of tokens, no central upgrade authority, decentralised governance — are operationally complex and may be gamed by sophisticated actors. Solana's governance structure, for instance, raised genuine questions at the time of the Act's drafting. Nevertheless, the concept achieves something MiCA has not: it translates decentralisation from a philosophical aspiration into a legally operative test.

For the MiCA review, the European Commission should consider whether Article 2(5)'s exclusion of "fully decentralised" services can be rendered more precise. A statutory definition of decentralisation — even a multi-factor, principles-based one, consistent with EU legislative tradition — would dramatically reduce the grey zone currently exploited by both legitimate innovators seeking certainty and bad actors exploiting ambiguity. The Commission's MiCA review consultation, announced at Paris Blockchain Week 2026 by Peter Kerstens and due to produce a report by 30 June 2027, represents precisely this opportunity.

Lesson 2: Introduce statutory safe harbours for non-custodial actors

Section 601 of the CLARITY Act (§15H safe harbors) reflects a fundamental insight that MiCA's drafters did not fully internalise: technology providers and infrastructure operators are not financial intermediaries. A node operator, an oracle provider, an open-source wallet developer, and a front-end interface builder are not meaningfully different — in terms of their capacity to harm users or manipulate markets — from a roads maintenance contractor is to a bank robbery. Imposing CASP-level obligations on these actors does not protect consumers; it deters infrastructure development.

MiCA currently leaves this question largely unaddressed. Its exclusion of "fully decentralised" services provides only partial protection and no specific statutory safe harbour for individual development activities. Drawing on the CLARITY Act's approach, a future MiCA amendment could introduce an explicit, enumerated list of activities that, standing alone, do not trigger CASP authorisation obligations — including node operation, validator activity, open-source software development, and non-custodial wallet provision. This would not weaken consumer protection; it would sharpen it, by focusing regulatory attention on entities that genuinely control user assets.

Lesson 3: Build a lifecycle-sensitive classification system

MiCA's asset taxonomy is, by design, static. A token is either a utility token, an ART, an EMT, or a financial instrument — and it retains that classification regardless of how its issuer's governance structure evolves over time. The CLARITY Act's dynamic classification pathway — by which an asset can migrate from securities regulation to commodity regulation as its underlying network matures and decentralises — reflects a more technologically honest view of how blockchain projects actually develop.

Most tokens begin life with a meaningful degree of founder control, gradually distributing governance to broader communities as the project matures. Treating the 2026 state of a project identically to its 2020 state, simply because its token structure hasn't changed in form, produces legal outcomes untethered from economic reality. A future MiCA revision might consider introducing a "maturity pathway" concept — perhaps structured as a lighter-touch category for CASPs or issuers whose underlying protocol meets defined decentralisation criteria — allowing the regulation to remain technically coherent as markets evolve.

Lesson 4: Address self-custody as a fundamental right

The CLARITY Act's statutory protection for self-custody wallets — explicitly preempting any future administrative rule restricting their lawful use — reflects a normative commitment to individual financial autonomy that European regulation has not yet fully embraced. MiCA's regime imposes significant obligations on custodian wallet providers but says relatively little about the rights of individuals to self-custody their digital assets without regulatory interference.

This is not a purely theoretical question. The EU's Transfer of Funds Regulation (TFR) — revised in tandem with MiCA — already extends travel rule obligations to transfers to and from unhosted wallets in certain circumstances. As the regulatory net tightens, the question of whether self-custody itself can be made administratively burdensome will become increasingly contested. A future MiCA amendment, or a dedicated provision in MiCA 2.0, that explicitly enshrines the right to self-custody as a foundational principle — with any restrictions requiring proportionate justification — would provide both legal certainty and political legitimacy.

Lesson 5: Rationalise supervision to prevent regulatory arbitrage

One of the CLARITY Act's structural advantages is its reliance on two well-resourced federal agencies with clear, bright-line jurisdictional mandates. Whatever one thinks of the SEC-CFTC split in principle, both agencies operate as genuine national-level supervisors with equivalent enforcement authority across all fifty states. There is no risk that a digital commodity exchange regulated in Wyoming enjoys a materially lighter supervisory touch than one regulated in New York.

MiCA's passporting architecture does not provide this guarantee. As the implementation evidence from 2025 demonstrates, the quality and rigour of CASP supervision varies materially across EU member states. Discussion about potentially shifting oversight of larger crypto firms to ESMA directly — rather than through NCAs — has gained traction in Brussels, with debate crystallising around April 2026. The CLARITY Act's model of centralised, functionally specialised federal oversight supports this direction of travel. A MiCA 2.0 framework that extends direct ESMA supervision to systemically significant CASPs — mirroring the model used for credit rating agencies and certain benchmarks under existing EU financial law — would be a meaningful structural improvement.

Lesson 6: Stablecoins — Convergence with divergent methods

On stablecoins, the CLARITY Act (read together with the GENIUS Act) and MiCA converge on the most important substantive principles: full reserve backing, segregation of reserve assets from issuer balance sheets, mandatory redemption mechanisms, and consumer priority in insolvency. The GENIUS Act's insolvency priority rule — requiring that stablecoin holders rank pari passu or above all other unsecured creditors in issuer bankruptcy — is a structural protection that MiCA does not explicitly provide at the same level of granularity and could usefully be incorporated into the MiCA review.

Where the frameworks diverge is in who may issue stablecoins. Under MiCA, EMT issuance is restricted to credit institutions and electronic money institutions. The CLARITY Act and GENIUS Act contemplate a broader issuer base, including non-bank entities subject to federal or state oversight. The EU's restrictive approach provides systemic stability — by anchoring stablecoin issuance within the existing banking prudential framework — but at the cost of innovation diversity. As the stablecoin market matures, the Commission may wish to examine whether a tiered EMT issuer regime — maintaining rigorous requirements while expanding eligibility beyond traditional credit institutions — would better serve the objective of European monetary competitiveness.

Part V: The broader geopolitical stakes

The CLARITY Act vs. MiCA debate is not merely a technical regulatory discussion. It is a contest about where the next generation of financial infrastructure will be built, by whom, and under what legal norms.

The empirical evidence from MiCA's first full year of operation is instructive. By June 2025, over 40 CASP licences had been issued across the EU, with Germany, the Netherlands, and Malta leading the count. Compliance costs surged — one analysis reported a sixfold increase for affected firms — and some 75% of EU crypto providers were reported to have exited or relocated operations following MiCA's entry into force. Non-compliant stablecoins including USDT were delisted from EU-regulated platforms. The "MiCA transition" has functioned, as designed, as a market quality filter. But the filter may have been calibrated too tightly, too early.

Meanwhile, the U.S. — historically paralysed by regulatory dysfunction — is now assembling a framework that several industry participants regard as more innovation-friendly than MiCA, particularly for DeFi developers and token issuers. Singapore and other Asia-Pacific jurisdictions have introduced MiCA-compatible frameworks of their own, triggering what has been described as a regulatory arms race for crypto capital and talent. The European Commission's own MiCA review, announced in April 2026 as a "no taboos" consultation with industry, is an implicit acknowledgement that the initial framework — whatever its considerable merits — requires recalibration.

The stakes could not be higher. Digital assets are not a niche technological experiment. As stablecoin transaction volumes now surpass Visa and Mastercard combined, and as tokenisation of real-world assets accelerates across financial markets, the regulatory jurisdiction that governs the foundational infrastructure of this market will exercise extraordinary influence over economic activity for decades to come.

Towards a more dynamic MiCA

The CLARITY Act and MiCA represent genuinely different regulatory philosophies: the former more common-law in temperament, the latter more civil-law in structure. Neither is definitively superior. MiCA's comprehensive, pre-emptive approach provides systemic stability, market integrity, and a single-passport gateway to the world's largest single market — advantages the fragmented U.S. framework cannot easily replicate. The CLARITY Act's functional, decentralisation-sensitive, and DeFi-aware architecture is more technically honest about how blockchain networks actually operate — an honesty MiCA has not yet fully internalised.

What the MiCA review mandated by Article 149 of Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 — due to produce a Commission report by 30 June 2027 — should provide is not an abandonment of MiCA's hard-won achievements, but a calibrated integration of the CLARITY Act's best ideas into the EU's regulatory framework. Six lessons stand out:

Define "fully decentralised" in statute, replacing the current case-by-case ambiguity with a multi-factor legal test.
Create explicit, enumerated safe harbours for non-custodial actors, node operators, and open-source developers.
Introduce a maturity pathway allowing assets whose underlying networks have achieved meaningful decentralisation to migrate to a lighter regulatory category.
Enshrine self-custody rights as a foundational principle, subject to proportionate anti-money laundering constraints under the TFR.
Centralise supervision of systemically significant CASPs at ESMA level, reducing the scope for regulatory arbitrage across member states.
Expand the EMT issuer base to a tiered non-bank framework, preserving prudential rigour while broadening innovation pathways.

For European digital asset businesses and their legal advisers, the period between now and 2027 is not one of regulatory stasis. It is a window of active engagement — one in which the lessons of Capitol Hill can and should inform the next chapter of Brussels' most ambitious regulatory project.

This article reflects the state of applicable law and legislative proposals as of May 2026. It is published for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers seeking advice on specific regulatory matters should contact Jurisconsul directly.

References

Crypto Market Bill Explained: The CLARITY Act of 2025 & Digital ... - Congress just introduced the Crypto Market Bill, the CLARITY Act of 2025, promising long-awaited reg...
The Regulation on Markets in Crypto-Assets Becomes Fully ... - As of 30 December 2024, the second phase of MiCA, and therefore MiCA in its entirety, is directly ap...
U.S. “Digital Clarity” vs. EU “MiCA”: Competing Paths for a Global ... - The U.S. Digital Asset Market Clarity Act and the EU’s MiCA represent two distinct approaches to dig...
The Clarity Act and the future digital asset market - Mahmoud Abuwasel of Wasel & Wasel examines the proposed Digital Asset Market Clarity Act and the aim...
US Crypto Tracker Legislative Developments - Latham & Watkins LLP - Legislative and regulatory developments in blockchain, digital assets, stablecoins, NFTs, and Web3.
CLARITY Act Explained: What U.S. Crypto Investors and Builders ... - The CLARITY Act of 2025 gives U.S. crypto investors and builders long-awaited regulatory certainty. ...
CLARITY Act Vote Reshapes Crypto Regulation | KuCoin - The CLARITY Act, passing 12-11 in the US Senate, sets a new framework for crypto regulation, empower...
Congress Working to Reform Tax Treatment of Digital Assets - What’s next for crypto tax rules? See proposed changes for stablecoins, lending, charitable gifts, a...
What Is the CLARITY Act? - FinTech Weekly - The Digital Asset Market Clarity Act passed the US House in July 2025. The Senate has stalled twice....
Clarifying the CLARITY Act: What To Know About the House Crypto ... - Arnold & Porter
Genius Act in Action: How Regulatory Clarity Helps Safe Self-Custody - Discover how the GENIUS Act provides regulatory clarity for self-custody crypto users and strengthen...
Our Take: Digital assets – GENIUS and CLARITY Acts - PwC - GENIUS Act signed and CLARITY Act advances. See what changed for stablecoin issuers and digital asse...
Not All Blockchains Would Qualify—ChatGPT Reveals the 'Mature' Winners Under the Proposed CLARITY Act - Discover which blockchain networks qualify as 'mature' under the proposed CLARITY Act, according to ...
Is Your Protocol a Mature Blockchain System under the ... - Tally - The CLARITY Act officially passing the U.S. House of Representatives marks a turning point for token...
The CLARITY Act defines mature blockchain systems for US regulation - Some major blockchains, including Solana and Cardano, fail to meet maturity standards under the new ...
CLARITY Act Explained: Developer Safe Harbors & Stablecoin ... - The bill establishes explicit safe harbors for non-custodial developers, clarifies federal versus st...
Key House Committee Chairs Release Draft Bill on Digital Asset ... - Creates a statutory safe harbor for self-custody wallets, preempting any future FinCEN or Treasury r...
Markets in Crypto-Assets - Wikipedia - MiCA was adopted by the EU Parliament on 20 April 2023 and has been fully applicable since December ...
MiCA 2025 Compliance Guide for CASPs - EU Crypto Regulation ... - Prepare for MiCA authorisation in 2025. Learn EU crypto rules, CASP licensing steps, prudential capi...
The CASP Licence: The New Standard For EU Crypto Compliance - The CASP license — short for Crypto Asset Service Provider license — is rapidly becoming the new reg...
Roadmap to Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) Regulation in 2025 - Within this article, ther SALVUS Regulatory Compliance team explains the core aspects of MiCA, the a...
Aml/kyc Obligations Under... - Learn how to obtain a MiCA license: CASP requirements, authorization steps, documentation, and EU pa...
MiCA Stablecoin Rules: What EMT and ART Issuers Must Know - Learn how MiCA reshapes stablecoins in the EU. See how EMTs and ARTs are defined, regulated, and imp...
ESMA and the European Commission publish guidance on non ...
ESMA sets deadline for firms to comply with MiCA - CoinGeek - In a January 17 statement, ESMA urged crypto asset service providers (CASPs) to restrict or delist s...
Bankless: MiCA's Regulatory Earthquake – Geopolitical ... - Bankless: MiCA's Regulatory Earthquake – Geopolitical Risk and Market Reallocation in Crypto
MiCA vs. CLARITY Act: Launching a Token in the EU vs. US - Two giants, USA and EU, stand united above the crypto world, guiding a crowd wearing the logos of th...
Why doesn't MiCA regulate DeFi and what is the regulator doing to ... - Since its approval, the MiCA Regulation has sparked multiple debates about which activities and serv...
MiCA Regulation Explained: A Guide To EU Crypto Compliance - MiCA's harshest critics argue that the regulation institutionalizes crypto, which defeats the sector...
MiCA Regulation Guide 2026: EU Crypto-Asset Framework Explained - Complete guide to MiCA Regulation (EU) 2023/1114. Learn about crypto-asset licensing, stablecoin rul...
How crypto firms are taking advantage of MiCA's patchy ... - Binance - Stablecoin laws have already gone live, but EU countries are scrambling to comply with the rest of t...
How crypto firms are taking advantage of MiCA's patchy roll-out - MiCA’s licensing regime will go live at the end of December. Countries will have different levels of...
MiCA Market Shakeout: EU Crypto Firms Face Regulatory ... - RatEx42 - While U.S. crypto heavyweights report massive Q4 losses amid collapsing token prices, Europe faces a...
EU Announces Review of MiCA Crypto Framework Amid Market ... - The review aims to ensure the regulatory framework keeps up with the crypto market update, covering ...
EU adviser says 'MiCA 2' is likely as crypto market matures: PBW 2026 - MiCA already contains a built-in review clause. The regulation requires the Commission to report on ...
The MiCA Regulatory Fracture: How Inconsistent EU ... - The MiCA Regulatory Fracture: How Inconsistent EU Crypto Oversight Threatens Financial Integrity and...
The GENIUS Act of 2025 Stablecoin Legislation Adopted in the US - The GENIUS Act provides that custodial and safekeeping services for the payment stablecoin reserve, ...
The US CLARITY Act vs. MiCA: Which Framework Actually Protects ... - The CLARITY Act offers explicit DeFi safe harbors, while MiCA's vague decentralization standard push...