This article examines whether EU member states may issue euro-referenced stablecoins without infringing the EU’s exclusive competence for monetary policy. It argues that the legal assessment depends on objectives and effects rather than on technological form. Where a digital token is structured as a redeemable liability, lacks legal tender status, and avoids systemic monetary impact, it may well fall within national fiscal autonomy.
22 MAY 2026The 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.
9 JUN 2025