Why Advocacy Comes First: Reflections from The Raven Day, Berlin

At The Raven Day in Berlin this week, the first edition of a full-day format convened by BlackVogel during Berlin Blockchain Week, our General Secretary Juan Ignacio Ibáñez joined the Regulation panel, "Rules meet reality," to discuss where global crypto regulation is working, where it is not, and what the path forward looks like. Juan was joined by Benedikt Faupel (Bitpanda), Chloe White (formerly VARA), and Nina Siedler (DAAvern), who moderated, for a rigorous and honest discussion.

One provision came up as a clear example of the gap between intention and effect: Article 15 of MiCA.

The problem with Article 15

Article 15 creates personal liability for individuals associated with the issuance of crypto-asset white papers in the EU. In practice, founders, executives, and other natural persons can be held personally responsible for the content of a white paper, in ways that sit outside the limited-liability structures the rest of European corporate law is built on.

Limited liability exists for a reason. It is the mechanism that lets people take entrepreneurial risk without exposing their personal assets to unlimited claims. When a framework reaches through that protection, the effect is not stronger investor protection. It is weaker participation. A founder weighing where to issue a token, build a team, and locate operations has a straightforward incentive to choose a jurisdiction that does not attach personal exposure to the act of publishing a disclosure document. Europe loses the builder, and the investor protection the provision was meant to deliver does not materialise either, because the project simply happens somewhere else.

The panel's conclusion was that there is a better tool for the underlying concern. If the worry is whether an issuer can meet its obligations, the established response is to raise capital requirements, not to extend personal liability. Capital adequacy is how the rest of financial regulation manages exactly this kind of risk. It is measurable, it scales with the size of the activity, and it does not drive talent offshore.

‍This is the distinction we work on

That example illustrates how the Alliance approaches its work. We provide services that help projects, builders, and institutions navigate the frictions MiCA creates, and that work is real: Europe's regulatory landscape is genuinely complex, and operating inside it without expert guidance is difficult.

But the services exist because the gaps exist, and the more useful goal is to close the gaps. A competitive European Web3 ecosystem does not come from a consultancy industry that helps projects survive regulatory complexity. It comes from regulation that does not require survival in the first place. That is why engagement with policymakers, contributing technical input to consultations, and raising provisions like Article 15 directly with the people who can change them sits at the centre of what we do.

Where we can act on the gap directly, we do. On Article 15 specifically, the Alliance has secured insurance cover to adopt the role of person seeking admission to trading for some of the white papers that we prepare, mitigating the challenges for entities unable to adopt this role. This cover is possible because of the standard of the documentation itself: an insurer will underwrite this risk only where the underlying white papers are rigorous, complete, and defensible. The quality of the work is what makes the protection available. It is a concrete instance of the Alliance closing a gap for the projects we support while the larger advocacy effort to address the provision continues.

The broader channel for that effort is the European Commission's MiCA review consultation, open until 31 August, where the treatment of white paper liability falls squarely within scope. The Alliance will address Article 15 directly through its response.
‍

Why this matters for European competitiveness

In MiCA, Europe has the most comprehensive crypto-asset framework in the world. That is a real achievement, and one the Alliance has publicly supported. But comprehensiveness without competitiveness is a strategic risk. If implementation makes Europe less attractive to serious builders than less-regulated alternatives, the framework's own goals go unmet.

Addressing a provision like Article 15 is not about weakening MiCA. It is about making sure MiCA delivers what it was designed to deliver: investor protection, market integrity, and a digital asset market that can attract the people who build seriously.

The Raven Day was the right room for this. It brought regulators, founders, builders, and policy voices together to discuss not only compliance, but the purpose behind the rules.

Thank you to BlackVogel for convening it, and to the other panel participants: Benedikt Faupel (Bitpanda), Chloe White (formerly VARA), and Nina Siedler (DAAvern).