MiCA in Action: Implementing the EU’s Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation in Practice
At the London Blockchain Conference 2025, the panel “MiCA in Action: Europe’s New Rulebook” brought together banking, regulatory, legal, infrastructure, and industry perspectives to discuss what implementing the EU’s Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) Regulation looks like in practice. The conversation focused on real-world compliance challenges, operational costs, and the role MiCA is playing in shaping trust and market structure across Europe.
Moderated by Juan Ignacio Ibañez, General Secretary of the MiCA Crypto Alliance, the panel explored MiCA as both a trust-building framework and a source of operational friction for market participants navigating Europe’s new crypto rulebook.
A Multi-Perspective View on MiCA
The panel reflected the breadth of actors affected by MiCA. Laurent Marochini, CEO of Standard Chartered Luxembourg, spoke from the perspective of a regulated bank pursuing MiCA authorisation. Christian Moor, Senior Policy Expert at the European Banking Authority (EBA), outlined the regulator’s objectives and supervisory approach. Legal interpretation and client uncertainty were addressed by Seamus Andrew, Managing Partner at Velitor Law. Infrastructure and ecosystem considerations came from Thomas Giacomo, Head of Fintech of Teranode Group and Vivek Chand, Head of Business of the BSV Association.
From the outset, the discussion made clear that MiCA is not a single, uniform experience. Its impact varies significantly depending on whether an organisation is a bank, a fintech, an infrastructure provider, or a token issuer.
Infrastructure and Real-Time Compliance
A recurring theme was the practical and technical nature of MiCA compliance for infrastructure providers. Thomas Giacomo explained that MiCA requires “real-time compliance”, rather than periodic compliance, particularly for entities operating at the infrastructure layer.
He noted that infrastructure providers play a key role in enabling regulated fintechs to meet MiCA requirements by allowing compliance at scale. This includes supporting auditability and traceability at the transaction level, which he described as essential for meeting regulatory expectations under MiCA.
The Banking Burden and the Value of Trust
Laurent Marochini provided one of the most concrete illustrations of MiCA’s operational cost. He described the MiCA application process as extensive and document-heavy, citing hundreds of pages of documentation and over a hundred supporting documents. He also emphasised the financial burden of compliance, noting that legal and advisory costs can reach hundreds of thousands of euros.
Despite this, Marochini was clear that MiCA delivers something banks value highly: trust. Once authorised, a MiCA licence provides strong assurance to clients, signalling security and legitimacy in the market.
The EBA’s Role and Regulatory Convergence
Christian Moor explained that the EBA operates on both supervisory and regulatory fronts. A dedicated Crypto Asset Standing Committee brings together national supervisors to support convergence in MiCA implementation, while the EBA also develops secondary legislation, including technical standards for reserve assets and liquidity.
He described ongoing differences between prudential standards proposed by the EBA and subsequent revisions adopted by the European Commission, particularly in relation to stablecoin reserves. He also emphasised that MiCA was designed to balance financial innovation, consumer protection, and financial stability.
Legal Uncertainty and Client Confusion
From a legal standpoint, Seamus Andrew noted that much of the current MiCA work involves answering fundamental client questions about how the regime applies in practice. Stablecoins remain the most contentious issue, particularly the requirement to hold a large proportion of reserves as bank deposits.
Clients question whether such deposits are inherently safer than alternatives like treasury bills, especially in light of recent banking failures. Andrew highlighted public statements from stablecoin issuers, citing explanations of why compliance with MiCA may not be feasible under current rules, illustrating the real market consequences of regulatory design choices.
Stablecoins at the Centre of the Debate
Stablecoins emerged as the central policy tension throughout the panel. Andrew described the debate as one of the most significant banking policy questions in decades, touching on deposit flight, systemic risk, and the future role of banks.
Christian Moor responded by outlining the EU’s rationale: keeping funds within the banking system to support the real economy. However, he acknowledged unresolved risks, including global issuers operating partly outside EU supervision and the growing interlinkages between stablecoins and traditional finance.
MiCA as Enabler, Not Just Constraint
While the costs and complexity of MiCA were widely acknowledged, several panellists emphasised its enabling role. Vivek Chand argued that sensible regulation creates credibility, which in turn drives enterprise and institutional adoption. He highlighted collaborative efforts between infrastructure providers, exchanges, and compliance bodies to produce MiCA-compliant white papers.
Thomas Giacomo went further, describing MiCA as a global benchmark that is already influencing regulatory discussions beyond Europe, including in the Middle East. Across the panel, gaps were identified around areas such as DeFi, NFTs, and real-world assets, although the clarity MiCA provides was described as a net positive.
Europe, the UK, and the Global Context
The panel discussed differences between the EU’s approach to crypto regulation and that of the UK and the US. Drawing on Laurent Marochini’s perspective, MiCA reflects a European emphasis on regulation, trust, and sovereignty, shaped by early concerns around global stablecoins.
By contrast, Laurent noted that the UK regime currently focuses more on AML registration, innovation, and competitiveness, with stablecoin rules still evolving. A practical consequence is that UK-based providers serving European markets will still need to comply with MiCA, reinforcing its extraterritorial relevance.
MiCA Within the EU Digital Finance Stack
Finally, MiCA was positioned by Thomas Giacomo as one component of a broader EU digital finance framework, alongside DORA, AMLA, and the European Digital Identity Wallet. He argued that only when these elements are fully aligned will Europe have a robust digital finance stack capable of supporting mass adoption.
From Milestone to Maturity
In closing, Juan Ibañez noted that MiCA represents a major regulatory achievement rooted in work that began several years ago. However, the panel made clear that implementation is still evolving, gaps remain, and practical challenges persist.
The discussion captured MiCA as it exists today: a powerful framework that builds trust and sets global standards, while demanding significant effort from those tasked with making it work in practice.
Watch the panel recording below.
