Europe was one of the first major markets to implement a comprehensive crypto framework through MiCA.
Now the European Commission is already reviewing whether the regulation remains fit for purpose after its initial implementation.
The current consultation, which runs until September 30, specifically asks whether MiCA needs to be amended or expanded based on how the crypto market has developed since the original framework was introduced.
That is interesting because MiCA was supposed to provide one major advantage:
one regulatory framework across the EU instead of 27 different national approaches.
For exchanges and crypto businesses, that creates obvious benefits:
- clearer licensing;
- passporting across EU markets;
- defined stablecoin rules;
- disclosure requirements;
- consumer-protection standards.
But there are also legitimate criticisms.
Compliance costs can be significant, especially for smaller companies. There is also a risk that regulation favors large exchanges and established financial firms because they can absorb those costs more easily.
So the real question is not whether regulation is needed, but whether MiCA creates a competitive market or gradually concentrates it.
For people operating in Europe: has MiCA made the crypto industry easier or harder to work with in practice?
And if you could change one part of MiCA during the current review, what would it be?