Our articles are written by experts in their field and include individual barristers, solicitors, academics, judges, and leading firms in relevant areas of practice. JIBFL offers authoritative insights into global banking and financial law, providing essential updates for legal practitioners and policymakers. Covering key topics like lending, security interests, derivatives, debt capital markets, banking and finance related disputes, crypto, FinTech and financial regulation, JIBFL serves as a trusted resource for navigating complex legal challenges and staying informed in the financial sector. If you would like to contribute, please email Amanda.Cohen2@lexisnexis.com.
MiCA: unresolved questions
© Copyright LexisNexis 2025. All rights reserved.
The EU Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation has been in force for the better part of a year. Still, many legal questions surrounding its scope of application remain unanswered and new questions are emerging at a rapid pace. Among those open issues are whether European Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation’s (MiCA’s or MiCAR’s) asset-referenced tokens can be characterised as derivative financial instruments under MiFID II, as well as their differentiation from “other” cryptoassets. The understanding of white paper obligations is evolving. The question of how cryptoassets service providers (CASPs) may use cryptoassets initially received for custody purposes is being debated, and the link between EU and national law raises further questions about how to insolvency-proof a CASP’s custody business. This article aims to shed light on these topics and provide ideas for an understanding of MiCA’s provisions going forward.
If you are already a User, sign in
Or you can register free of charge to read a limited amount of subscriber content per month.
Once you have registered, you will receive an email directing you back to read this article in full.
Alternatively you can subscribe here to read unlimited content.
