Informational content only. Not legal or tax advice.
MiCA gives crypto-asset service providers (CASPs) a clear path: get authorized in one EU country and then offer services across the Union via passporting. The idea is one rulebook instead of 27 different regimes.
In practice, a second dynamic appears: some firms aim to license in jurisdictions where the process is faster or lighter, then enter the whole EU market. That’s what people call regulatory arbitrage.
France’s core concern is that single rules will not be applied with the same strictness everywhere.
In 2025, this became a public dispute among regulators: Reuters described tensions around the fact that some jurisdictions were issuing MiCA approvals faster than others, and France—through its regulator—did not rule out challenging licenses granted by other EU countries.
Paris’ main argument is straightforward: if a major player gets an easy license and serves French customers, then consumer-protection, reputational, and banking-compliance risks land in France—while France has limited leverage over how the home supervisor enforces day-to-day oversight.
Against this backdrop, the European Commission has floated options under which ESMA could gain more direct supervisory powers over the largest crypto firms, aiming to reduce gaps in national approaches.
That idea meets resistance: for example, Malta has publicly pushed back on centralization at this stage, warning about extra bureaucracy and a potential hit to EU competitiveness.
The real 2026 question is: keep MiCA passporting largely as-is (with a focus on supervisory convergence)—or add a tougher second layer of oversight for the biggest players via ESMA.
If France’s line gains momentum—through supervisory practice or reforms—several outcomes become more likely:
Expect higher expectations for internal controls, risk management, conflicts of interest, and operational transparency—especially for large platforms. The logic: if you serve the entire EU, you should meet the highest standard, not the minimum.
Supervisors will look beyond a legal address: where the team sits, how compliance is staffed, how key functions are run, custody arrangements, and how AML controls work in practice.
More information requests, tighter product/channel approvals, and more cautious marketing or listings for sensitive assets.
For most users, the biggest impact shows up through banks and fiat rails:
The winners tend to be services that build serious processes from day one: compliance, clear rules, and careful bank relationships. Choose wisely.