EBA MiCA Statement on ARTs and EMTs: Issuer Takeaways

Last updated: April 2026

If you issue or offer asset-referenced tokens (ARTs) or e-money tokens (EMTs) in the EU without the right authorisation, there is no grace period and no soft landing. The EBA made that position explicit in its statement of 5 July 2024 on the application of MiCAR to ARTs and EMTs. It replaced an earlier 2023 statement that had provided guiding principles during the transition phase leading up to 30 June 2024. The new statement dropped the transitional tone entirely and set clear expectations for issuers, CASPs, and competent authorities.

I work with teams in Luxembourg that were caught off guard by how quickly the EBA shifted from “guiding principles” to enforcement expectations. The statement itself is short. But the operational consequences for authorisation pipelines, CASP onboarding processes, and quarterly reporting obligations are substantial.

This article breaks down what the EBA statement actually says, where it creates concrete obligations for issuers and CASPs, and what reporting teams need to have in place. It is not a general overview of MiCAR. For that, see our MiCAR reporting obligations guide.

Related reading: FATF Stablecoins and Unhosted Wallets: AML/CFT Implications

What the EBA Statement Covers

The EBA statement (dated 5 July 2024) replaced the earlier transition phase statement from 2023 and addresses three audiences: issuers and offerors of ARTs and EMTs, crypto-asset service providers (CASPs), and competent authorities. Its full title is “EBA statement on the application of MiCAR to ARTs and EMTs,” and it was published under the EBA’s mandate as the lead authority for ART and EMT supervision under Regulation (EU) 2023/1114.

The statement is not a regulation. It does not create new law. But it sets out the EBA’s supervisory expectations, and competent authorities across the EU (including the CSSF in Luxembourg) are expected to act on it. The CSSF published the statement on its own website, signalling alignment.

One thing teams frequently misread: the statement is not limited to entities seeking new authorisation. It also applies to those already issuing tokens that may not comply with MiCAR’s requirements. The EBA expects prompt compliance, not a wait-and-see approach.

The EBA statement does acknowledge a narrow transitional regime for ARTs. Under Article 143(4) and (5) of MiCAR, ART issuers that issued tokens in accordance with applicable law before 30 June 2024 may continue to do so under transitional arrangements until they obtain MiCAR authorisation or are refused authorisation. This is the only transitional pathway in the statement. No equivalent regime applies to EMTs, which means an EMT in circulation on 1 July 2024 without proper EMI or credit institution authorisation has no soft landing at all. For ARTs, the transitional regime is narrower than many issuers initially hoped, but it does exist and should be confirmed with the competent authority where it applies.

EBA MiCA Statement: ARTs vs EMTs and Why the Distinction Matters

MiCAR draws a hard line between ARTs and EMTs. They sit in different titles of the regulation and have different authorisation routes. Confusing the two creates compliance gaps that are difficult to fix after launch.

Asset-referenced tokens (ARTs) are covered under Title III of MiCAR. These are crypto-assets that purport to maintain a stable value by referencing several currencies, one or more commodities, one or more other crypto-assets, or a combination of these. Think of a token backed by a basket of EUR, USD, and gold. The issuer must either hold a standalone MiCAR authorisation under Article 16, or be a credit institution that has notified its competent authority and had its white paper approved under Article 17.

E-money tokens (EMTs) fall under Title IV. These reference a single official currency and function like electronic money. The issuer must be authorised as either a credit institution under Directive 2013/36/EU or an electronic money institution under Directive 2009/110/EC (EMD2). There is no standalone “EMT issuer” licence. You need the underlying EMI or credit institution licence first.

Where teams get this wrong: a single-currency stablecoin pegged to EUR is not an ART. It is an EMT. I have seen project teams in Luxembourg draft their white paper under Title III when they should have been under Title IV, which means the entire authorisation path was wrong from the start. By the time the CSSF flagged it, months of preparation were wasted.

Authorisation Requirements: What the EBA Expects

The EBA statement is blunt about what “compliance with MiCAR” means in practice for ARTs and EMTs.

ART Issuers

Under Article 16(1) of MiCAR, no person may offer an ART to the public in the EU or seek its admission to trading unless that person is:

• A legal person or undertaking established in the EU that has been granted authorisation under MiCAR, or
• A credit institution that complies with the requirements set out in MiCAR (specifically, notification to the competent authority and white paper approval under Article 17).

Article 16(2) provides limited exemptions from the authorisation requirement. These apply where the ART is offered only to qualified investors, or where the outstanding issued value does not exceed EUR 5 million over a rolling twelve-month period. But the EBA statement makes clear that even exempt issuers remain subject to certain MiCAR obligations. The exemption is narrow, and teams should not treat it as a blanket carve-out.

EMT Issuers

EMTs may only be issued by a credit institution or by an entity authorised as an electronic money institution under EMD2. Article 48(1) of MiCAR is explicit. There is no equivalent to the ART standalone licence for EMTs.

This matters operationally because some crypto-native firms assumed they could issue a EUR-pegged stablecoin under a lighter MiCAR process. They cannot. The EMI authorisation process itself is a significant undertaking, with own funds, governance, safeguarding, and passporting requirements that predate MiCAR entirely.

Credit Institutions: Not Exempt from MiCAR Substance

Credit institutions do not need a separate MiCAR authorisation to issue ARTs or provide crypto-asset services (per Articles 16(1)(b) and 60(1) of MiCAR). But they must still comply with MiCAR’s substantive requirements: white paper preparation and approval, reserve of assets, own funds, redemption rights, and reporting. The EBA statement reinforces this. Being a bank does not waive MiCAR content requirements.

CASP Obligations Under the EBA Statement

The EBA statement goes further than most teams expected on the CASP side. It does not just address issuers. It sets expectations for any CASP that offers services related to ARTs and EMTs.

The key expectation: CASPs should set up procedures to assess whether the ARTs and EMTs they handle are MiCAR-compliant. The EBA states that CASPs “should refrain, as from 30 June 2024, from carrying out services that constitute offering to the public, seeking admission to trading or placing non-compliant ARTs/EMTs.”

This is not a suggestion. It is the EBA telling CASPs they bear a due diligence obligation on the tokens they list and trade. If you are a CASP in Luxembourg and you list a stablecoin issued by a third-country entity with no EU authorisation, you are carrying risk. The CSSF expects you to have documented procedures for token compliance assessment, and I have seen this come up in supervisory exchanges.

What CASPs often get wrong: they assume that if a token is widely traded on global exchanges, it must be compliant somewhere. MiCAR compliance is issuer-specific and jurisdiction-specific. A token issued by a Cayman entity without EU authorisation does not become MiCAR-compliant because Binance lists it.

What “Non-Compliant” Means: The EBA’s Examples

The EBA statement provides specific examples of non-compliance. These are worth flagging because they define the boundaries more concretely than the regulation text alone.

An ART or EMT is not in accordance with MiCAR where:

• An EMT is issued by an entity in the EU that does not hold an authorisation as a credit institution or an electronic money institution.
• An ART is offered to the public in the EU by an issuer that has not been granted authorisation under MiCAR and is not a credit institution that has complied with MiCAR’s notification and white paper requirements.
• An ART or EMT is offered to the public in the EU or admitted to trading by an entity established outside the EU (a third-country entity) that does not meet MiCAR’s requirements.

The third example is the one with the most practical impact. Several widely used stablecoins are issued by entities outside the EU. Unless those issuers establish an EU-authorised entity and bring their token programme under MiCAR, CASPs in the EU face a compliance question every day those tokens remain listed.

Quarterly Reporting for ART Issuers Under Article 22

Separate from the EBA statement but directly relevant to ART issuers is the reporting regime under Article 22 of MiCAR, further specified by EBA ITS (EBA/ITS/2024/04, finalised 19 June 2024).

Article 22(1) requires ART issuers to report to their competent authority on a quarterly basis. The obligation kicks in for any ART with an issued value exceeding EUR 100 million. Below that threshold, the competent authority may still require reporting under Article 22(2).

What Gets Reported

The EBA ITS specify a set of reporting templates:

• S 01.00: Number of holders (reported by country and customer type).
• S 02.00: Value of the token issued and the size of the reserve of assets.
• S 04.01 and S 04.02: Average number and aggregate value of transactions per day during the quarter, broken down by country (S 04.01) and aggregated at EU level (S 04.02).

These templates are designed to feed the significance assessment under Article 43 of MiCAR. If an ART meets the significance thresholds (including criteria related to holder count, market capitalisation, and transaction volumes), supervision transfers to the EBA.

CASP Data Sharing Under Article 22(3)

CASPs that provide services related to ARTs are required under Article 22(3) to report to the issuer the information necessary to prepare the quarterly report. Without CASP cooperation, the issuer cannot populate the templates. This is a data dependency that many issuers underestimate. If your token is traded across multiple CASPs in different Member States, you need data sharing agreements in place, and those agreements need to cover the granularity the ITS require (country-level breakdowns, transaction type splits).

In practice, this creates friction. CASPs are not always eager to share client-level data with issuers, especially across jurisdictions. I have seen at least two Luxembourg-based issuers struggle to get complete data from CASPs operating under transitional arrangements in other Member States. The data gap directly affects the accuracy of the quarterly submission.

EMTs Denominated in Non-EU Currencies

Article 58(3) of MiCAR extends similar reporting requirements to EMTs denominated in a currency that is not an official currency of an EU Member State. The same ITS templates apply. This catches USD-denominated stablecoins issued by EU-authorised EMIs. The reporting burden is real, and it applies regardless of whether the EMT has crossed the significance thresholds.

Reserve of Assets and Own Funds: Operational Traps

The EBA statement reminds issuers that MiCAR’s requirements on the reserve of assets (Article 36) and own funds (Article 35) apply from the point of authorisation. These are not future obligations. They are conditions for operating.

Reserve of Assets

ART issuers must constitute and maintain a reserve of assets that covers the value of tokens in circulation. MiCAR requires a minimum of 30% of the reserve (referenced in each official currency) to be held as deposits with credit institutions. For significant ARTs, that minimum rises to 60% automatically. For non-significant ARTs, the competent authority can also require the 60% minimum where it considers this necessary.

The same minimum applies to EMTs by extension: significant EMTs are subject to the 60% deposit minimum, and competent authorities can require non-significant EMT issuers to hold either 30% or 60% in deposits depending on the risks identified.

The reserve must be composed of highly liquid financial instruments. The Commission Delegated Regulation under Article 38(5) of MiCAR (based on EBA/RTS/2024/11) specifies that these must be Level 1 liquid assets as defined in the Liquidity Coverage Ratio framework (Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/61), subject to a 0% haircut. This rules out a wide range of instruments that some issuers initially assumed would qualify.

Own Funds

Under Article 35(1) of MiCAR, ART issuers must hold own funds equal to the highest of three elements: (a) EUR 350,000; (b) 2% of the average amount of the reserve of assets; or (c) 25% of the fixed overheads of the preceding year. For ARTs classified as significant, the 2% factor in element (b) automatically increases to 3% under Article 45(5). Separately, competent authorities can impose an additional risk-based increase of up to 20% under Article 35(3) where they identify higher risk in the issuer’s profile.

The fixed overheads test in element (c) often catches newer issuers off guard. If your reserve of assets is small relative to your operating cost base, the 25% of fixed overheads test may be the binding constraint, not the 2% reserve test.

Where this trips teams up: the own funds requirement is not static. It recalculates as the reserve grows. If your token gains market traction quickly, the own funds requirement scales with it. Finance teams need to model this dynamically, not treat it as a one-time capital injection at authorisation.

Competent Authority Expectations

The EBA statement directs competent authorities to act proactively. Specifically:

• Where a competent authority becomes aware that a person has commenced or plans to commence ART/EMT activities without authorisation, the EBA expects the authority to bring MiCAR requirements to that person’s attention on a best-efforts basis.
• Competent authorities should make information available to consumers about: (i) whether an ART or EMT has been authorised, (ii) the protections offered to holders by MiCAR, and (iii) relevant registers or sources of information.

In Luxembourg, the CSSF maintains a register of authorised entities. If you are an issuer and your token does not appear on that register, expect questions from CASPs conducting their own compliance checks. The register is the de facto market signal of compliance.

Cross-Border Enforcement and Why “Borderless” Tokens Are Not Borderless Regulation

The EBA statement acknowledges that crypto-assets are “borderless” but emphasises that enforcement must be consistent across the EU. It calls for close cooperation between competent authorities, the EBA, and the other European Supervisory Authorities (ESMA, EIOPA).

This matters for Luxembourg-based operations because tokens issued under one Member State’s authorisation passport across the EU. But the EBA statement implies that competent authorities should not wait for the home authority to act if they detect non-compliant activity in their jurisdiction.

What this does NOT mean: it does not create a mechanism for one competent authority to override another’s authorisation decision. But it does create an expectation that authorities will flag non-compliant offerings proactively, even when the issuer is established elsewhere. For CASPs operating in Luxembourg that list tokens authorised (or not) in other Member States, this raises the standard of due diligence.

Consumer Warnings: The EBA’s Risk Reminder

The EBA statement includes a direct warning to consumers. If an ART or EMT is not issued in accordance with MiCAR, “the safeguards set out in MiCAR do not apply, and consumers should be extremely cautious in acquiring such crypto-assets.”

This consumer-facing language might seem disconnected from a reporting desk’s concerns. But it is not. Complaints handling procedures under MiCAR (Article 31 for ARTs) require issuers to have processes in place for token holders. If your token lacks proper authorisation, the complaints handling framework does not apply, and consumers lose access to the dispute resolution mechanisms MiCAR provides. Firms that interact with retail clients need to understand this liability gap.

Practical Differences from the General MiCAR Reporting Overview

Our earlier MiCAR reporting obligations article covers the broader reporting landscape, including CASP-level reporting to ESMA and NCA-level supervisory data. This article focuses specifically on the ART/EMT angle because the EBA statement narrows the lens to issuers, offerors, and the CASPs that handle their tokens.

The key differences in scope:

• The EBA statement is about enforcement readiness, not regulatory design. It assumes MiCAR is final and asks “are you compliant?”
• The quarterly reporting under Article 22 and Article 58(3) is issuer-level, not CASP-level. CASPs have their own reporting obligations under Title V, but the data sharing requirement in Article 22(3) creates a joint dependency.
• The authorisation pathways for ARTs and EMTs are distinct. Conflating them (as some general overviews do) leads to operational errors in the licence application process.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does the EBA statement create new legal obligations?

No. The EBA statement sets out supervisory expectations under existing MiCAR provisions. It does not amend Regulation (EU) 2023/1114. However, competent authorities are expected to act in line with these expectations, which gives them practical force in supervisory interactions.

When did the EBA statement take effect?

The statement was published on 5 July 2024 and replaced the earlier 2023 transition phase statement. The EBA’s expectations applied immediately from 30 June 2024, the date Title III (ARTs) and Title IV (EMTs) of MiCAR became applicable.

Can a third-country entity issue an ART or EMT in the EU?

Not directly. MiCAR requires ART issuers to be established in the EU. A third-country entity would need to set up an EU-based legal entity, obtain authorisation under Article 16 (or be a credit institution complying with Article 17), and meet all substantive MiCAR requirements. There is no equivalence or passporting mechanism for third-country ART issuers under MiCAR.

What happens if a CASP lists a non-compliant ART or EMT?

The EBA expects CASPs to refrain from offering, seeking admission to trading, or placing non-compliant ARTs and EMTs as of 30 June 2024. Continuing to list such tokens exposes the CASP to supervisory action from its competent authority. The specific consequences depend on the national enforcement framework, but the reputational and regulatory risk is immediate.

Is the EUR 100 million threshold for ART reporting mandatory for all issuers?

Article 22(1) of MiCAR requires quarterly reporting for ARTs with an issued value above EUR 100 million. Below that threshold, reporting is not automatic but the competent authority may require it under Article 22(2). In practice, if your competent authority asks, you report. Treat the EUR 100 million level as a floor for mandatory reporting, not a safe harbour below it.

Do EMTs denominated in EUR trigger Article 22 reporting?

No. Article 22 applies to ARTs. EMTs denominated in an EU official currency are governed by Title IV and do not fall under the Article 22 reporting templates. However, EMTs denominated in a non-EU currency (e.g. USD) are subject to reporting under Article 58(3) of MiCAR, using the same ITS templates.

How does the significance assessment affect ART reporting?

The quarterly data reported under Article 22 feeds the significance assessment under Article 43 of MiCAR. If an ART meets the significance criteria (which consider holder numbers, market capitalisation, transaction volumes, and other factors), supervision transfers from the national competent authority to the EBA. The significance assessment has direct consequences for reserve requirements (the 60% deposit threshold) and additional governance obligations.

What role does the CSSF play for Luxembourg-based issuers?

The CSSF is the competent authority for ART and EMT issuers established in Luxembourg. It receives authorisation applications, approves white papers, and collects the quarterly reports under Article 22. The CSSF published the EBA statement on its own website, indicating full alignment with the EBA’s supervisory expectations.

Related Articles

• MiCAR Reporting Obligations – Full overview of reporting requirements across MiCAR, including CASP-level obligations and NCA data submissions.
• FATF Stablecoins and Unhosted Wallets: AML/CFT Implications – How FATF guidance on stablecoins intersects with MiCAR’s AML framework for token issuers and CASPs.
• CARF Crypto Tax Reporting – Tax reporting obligations for crypto-asset service providers, including relevance to ART and EMT transactions.
• PSD3 and Luxembourg Payment Institutions – How PSD3 and the proposed PSR reshape EMI licensing, relevant for EMT issuers.
• AML Reporting in Luxembourg – STR filing and GoAML requirements applicable to CASPs handling ARTs and EMTs in Luxembourg.

Key Takeaways

• The EBA statement of 5 July 2024 replaced the 2023 transition phase guidance and set immediate compliance expectations for ART and EMT issuers, CASPs, and competent authorities under MiCAR.
• ARTs (Title III) and EMTs (Title IV) have distinct authorisation pathways. ARTs require a standalone MiCAR authorisation or credit institution status. EMTs require an EMI or credit institution licence. There is no standalone EMT issuer licence.
• CASPs must assess whether ARTs and EMTs they handle are MiCAR-compliant and refrain from listing non-compliant tokens. This is a due diligence obligation, not a suggestion.
• Third-country issuers cannot offer ARTs or EMTs in the EU without establishing an EU entity and obtaining proper authorisation. There is no equivalence mechanism.
• ART issuers above the EUR 100 million issued value threshold must submit quarterly reports under Article 22, using EBA ITS templates covering holder counts, token value, reserve size, and transaction volumes.
• CASPs must share data with ART issuers under Article 22(3) to enable quarterly reporting. Without these data sharing agreements, issuers cannot populate the required templates.
• Own funds requirements for ART issuers (the higher of EUR 350,000 or 2% of average reserve) are dynamic. They scale with reserve growth and must be monitored continuously.
• The CSSF published the EBA statement on its website, confirming alignment. Luxembourg-based issuers and CASPs should treat the EBA’s expectations as the baseline for supervisory interactions with the CSSF.

Sources and References

• Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 May 2023 on markets in crypto-assets (MiCAR) – EUR-Lex
• EBA Statement on the Application of MiCAR to ARTs and EMTs, 5 July 2024 – EBA
• EBA Final Report on Draft ITS on Reporting on ARTs under Article 22(7) of MiCAR (EBA/ITS/2024/04), 19 June 2024 – EBA
• CSSF – EBA Statement on the Application of MiCA to ARTs and EMTs – CSSF
• Directive 2009/110/EC (Electronic Money Directive 2 – EMD2) – EUR-Lex
• Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/61 (Liquidity Coverage Ratio) – EUR-Lex

Disclaimer: The information on RegReportingDesk.com is for educational and informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal, regulatory, tax, or compliance advice. Always consult your compliance officer, legal counsel, or the relevant supervisory authority for guidance specific to your institution.