MiCA Review: The EBA’s Priorities for Token Issuers and CASPs

On 24 September 2026 the European Banking Authority published its response to the European Commission’s targeted consultation on the MiCA review, an exercise feeding into the review framework under Article 140 of Regulation (EU) 2023/1114. The EBA asks the Commission to prioritise five things: a dedicated regime for third-country multi-issuer stablecoin schemes, a fresh look at how much of an issuer’s reserve must sit in bank deposits, clearer definitions to cut classification disputes, regulation of crypto-asset lending (including where a crypto-asset service provider, or CASP, gives clients access to DeFi lending protocols), and a rebuilt reporting framework for token issuers and CASPs.

For now the reporting framework is unchanged for issuers within scope. Article 22 requires quarterly reporting for ARTs with an issue value above EUR 100 million, although a competent authority may extend the obligation below that threshold. Article 58(3) applies Articles 22, 23 and 24(3) to EMTs denominated in a currency that is not an official currency of a Member State. EBA/GL/2024/16 supports additional supervisory data collection, including from EU-currency EMT issuers, generally above the EUR 100 million issue-value threshold or where the competent authority requires reporting below it; CASPs provide the information needed for the applicable Article 22 returns. The response matters because it is the EBA’s written position ahead of the Commission’s review report, and several of its asks (a legal definition of “EU holder”, a direct reporting mandate over CASPs, group-level reporting for mixed-activity groups) would land on the data teams that run the Article 22 returns today.

The EBA’s own figures set the scale. As at 1 September 2026, the EBA’s stated reference date for the purposes of its response, 39 EMTs had been issued under MiCA, 36 of them by electronic money institutions (EMIs), and no ART had been authorised under MiCA. Much of the response is therefore about EMTs and the firms that distribute, hold and lend them.

Related reading: EC MiCAR Review: What European CASPs Should Submit

MiCA review timeline: the dates behind the EBA response

• 20 May 2026: the Commission launches its targeted consultation on the review of MiCA (86 numbered questions), alongside a broader public consultation.
• 31 August 2026: original closing date for responses to the targeted consultation; the Commission subsequently extended the deadline to 30 September 2026, 23:59 CEST.
• 1 September 2026: the EBA’s stated reference date for the purposes of its response; individual historical and survey figures in the response retain their own reference periods.
• 24 September 2026: the EBA publishes its response, already submitted through the Commission’s survey tool.
• 30 June 2027: deadline under Article 140(1) MiCA for the Commission, having consulted the EBA and ESMA, to report to the European Parliament and the Council on the application of the Regulation, “accompanied, where appropriate, by a legislative proposal”.

The current reporting cycle runs on in parallel. Under Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2902 the next quarterly reference date is 30 September 2026: CASPs remit their quarterly data to issuers by 21 October, and issuers remit their returns by 11 November. The EBA’s MiCA supervision page adds a routing detail that is easy to miss: issuers submit directly to the EBA through its shared technical platform, and the data are then made available to competent authorities according to their tasks.

One caveat on the numbers. The EBA is running its first significance assessment under Articles 43 and 56 in 2026, so its views on the significance criteria predate the lessons from that first cycle, which it says it will pass to the Commission once the assessment is complete.

What kind of document this is, and how far it reaches

The EBA grounds the response in its founding Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010: point (b) of Article 8(1), on consistent application of Union law and preventing regulatory arbitrage, and Article 9(2), its duty to monitor market developments including financial innovation. It answered 31 of the 86 questions, those closest to its mandate. It gave no input on the questions on crypto-asset services, CASP prudential requirements or DeFi as a stand-alone topic, and it marked the CASP reporting section “N/A” with a note that its reporting views sit in its answers on issuer safeguards. A CASP team looking for the EBA’s position on CASP reporting will find it under the stablecoin questions.

The status point needs saying plainly because the vocabulary invites misreading. The recommendations are addressed to the Commission, and most are phrased as matters to “consider”, to “assess” or to put through “a cost benefit analysis”. A recommendation to regulate crypto-asset lending leaves lending outside MiCA’s list of services; a view that the deposit floor “could be reduced” leaves Article 54 intact; a call for a direct CASP reporting mandate adds nothing to what the Article 22 framework already requires. None of these recommendations changes current obligations.

Changes requiring new Level 1 powers would need a Commission legislative proposal and adoption through the EU legislative process. Technical standards and guidance can also be developed or revised within the EBA’s existing legal powers, as EBA/GL/2024/16 itself was, under Article 16 of the EBA’s founding Regulation; the response itself does not amend current obligations.

Third-country multi-issuer stablecoin schemes: the sharpest ask

In a third-country multi-issuer scheme (TCMIS), the same fungible token is issued both by an EU-authorised issuer and by an entity outside the EU, with the reserve split between them. MiCA’s articles say nothing explicit about such schemes, although they do address multi-issuance by EU entities (the EBA cites Article 37(2)), and two Q&As on whether the model is permitted, 2024_7068 and 2024_7069, remain unanswered by the Commission.

So far only two EMIs participate in a TCMIS, both for US dollar-denominated EMTs, and in one case the market capitalisation is relatively limited. The EBA nonetheless rated all six risks the Commission listed at 4 on a scale of 5, “significant”, from run risk and reserve depletion in the EU to data-tracking problems with holdings in self-custodial wallets and home jurisdictions whose rules fall short of international standards. If the number or scale of schemes changes, it warns, the risks could become “very significant” and may not be capable of being managed under MiCA.

The run mechanism is concrete. Holders can direct redemption requests to whichever issuer is under stricter regulation or offers better terms (no fee, faster processing), and CASPs operating across borders can re-assign token holdings between group entities so that they become EU holdings almost instantly when EU redemption looks advantageous. The EU issuer then faces redemptions against a reserve sized for a smaller EU float.

Supervisors already have relevant tools, but the legal bases are separate. For significant ARTs, Article 45(4) requires liquidity stress testing and allows EBA to strengthen the liquidity requirements in Article 45(7)(b) and Article 36(4); Article 58(1)(a) applies Article 45(1) to (4) to electronic money institutions issuing significant EMTs, while Article 58(2) allows home competent authorities to impose the relevant requirements on electronic money institutions issuing non-significant EMTs where necessary. Own-funds adjustments arise separately under Articles 35 and 58. Article 46 governs recovery plans and permits temporary suspension of redemption in the circumstances specified in Article 46(3) and (4); Article 47 separately governs redemption plans.

The safeguards on the Commission’s own list, from the Article 16 EU establishment requirement to the intervention powers in Articles 94, 104 and 105, all scored 2, “slightly effective”. The EBA’s reason, given for the establishment requirement, carries across: the presence of an EU issuer does not necessarily put the reserves, the risk management or the redemption dynamics inside the EU.

The response stops short of calling for a ban. The ESRB went further in Recommendation ESRB/2025/9, adopted on 25 September 2025 and published on 20 October 2025, recommending that the Commission not consider these schemes permitted under the current MiCA framework. The EBA frames its measures as applying “should TCMIS be permissible”:

• a new Article 43(1) significance criterion for participation in a multi-issuance scheme, assessed case by case and counting only alongside two or more other criteria;
• an equivalence regime as a baseline for EU market access, with EU authorities able to deny access or attach conditions, subject to strict reciprocity;
• a prior supervisory non-objection process where a credit institution or EMI plans to issue a token already issued by a non-EU issuer;
• removal of incentives to redeem in the EU, enforceable redemption arrangements, mandated cooperation between authorities, and possibly higher own funds;
• a cost-benefit analysis of tiered redemption fees or timelines, scaled to the amount a holder redeems.

The non-objection step addresses a supervisory-review gap identified by the EBA. An existing EMI does not need a separate MiCA issuer authorisation, but Article 48(6) requires an EMT issuer to notify its competent authority of its intention to offer the token to the public or seek admission to trading at least 40 working days beforehand; Article 51 separately requires advance notification of the crypto-asset white paper. The EBA considers the existing process insufficient for supervisory review of a potentially significant change to the institution’s operating model.

“EU holder” is the data point to watch

Asked whether tokens held in the EU can be determined with enough accuracy and frequency, the EBA answered “partially”, citing delays and estimation challenges. MiCA leaves “held in the EU” and “EU holder” undefined, and the EBA wants legislative definitions to serve as the foundation for a single reporting regime on which reserve and other requirements can rest. It also asks for clarity on the notion of “holder” in point (a) of Article 43(1).

Template S 01.00 of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2902 already reports holders by Member State or third country, split between custodial and non-custodial wallets, locating natural persons by habitual residence and legal persons by registered office. My reading is that a statutory “EU holder” definition would meet existing reporting at that point; the EBA does not name the template, and nothing in the response says the current location rule would change. Self-custodial wallets remain the hard case: the ITS recitals already acknowledge that issuers have limited information on the holders behind them.

Reserve assets: the 30% and 60% deposit floors come back into question

On the EMT reserve regime as a whole the EBA is conservative. It scored almost every element “3”, keep as is, and suggests the requirements remain unchanged until more experience has been gathered. The exception is the minimum share of reserves held as bank deposits, scored “2” (could be somewhat relaxed) for EMTs and significant EMTs alike. Those floors sit in the Level 1 text: Article 54(a) MiCA requires at least 30% of the funds an EMT issuer receives to be deposited in separate accounts in credit institutions, and the reserve rules for significant tokens set 60% (the EBA’s draft RTS under Articles 36(4) and 45(7)(b) apply both levels). Lowering them is a question for the MiCA review itself.

The reasoning runs in both directions. If reserve deposits are withdrawn quickly and at scale, the receiving bank can face liquidity stress despite MiCA’s diversification and concentration limits and its own LCR and NSFR requirements; if the bank gets into difficulty, the issuer faces delays or losses on reserves held there. The EBA therefore sees benefit in a cost-benefit analysis of whether the minimum could be reduced, in the law or at supervisory discretion, and floats minimum daily and weekly liquidity buckets with maturity limits and diversification as possibly more risk-sensitive than a fixed deposit percentage.

Reading the “2” as a recommendation to cut the floor overstates it. Every version of the idea is conditional on non-deposit reserve assets being liquid enough to meet redemptions within the relevant timeframes, with that quality set clearly in law. The EBA recommends that its June 2024 draft RTS on the liquidity of the reserve (Article 36(4)) and on highly liquid financial instruments (Article 38(5)) be adopted without material amendment, and repeats the concern from its October 2025 Opinions that the Commission’s proposed changes would water down the quality of other reserve assets, an effect a lower deposit floor would compound. Its example: withdrawals from money market funds, if permitted as reserve assets, can take more than four days to process even in normal conditions. Our coverage of the EBA MiCA statement on ARTs and EMTs sets out the reserve and own funds baseline these proposals start from.

Longer term, the EBA suggests defining the reserve framework for ARTs and EMTs entirely in MiCA instead of deferring some elements to the E-Money Directive, and asks that any change account for the Deposit Guarantee Schemes Directive’s treatment of funds that Article 54(a) requires to be held as deposits.

Banks issuing EMTs sit outside this debate by design, since MiCA does not apply the reserve and segregation requirements to credit institution issuers, consistent with Article 7 of the E-Money Directive, and the EBA wants that kept. As at 1 September 2026, three credit institutions issued EMTs directly and one through a subsidiary, and a consortium of EU banks has proposed a special purpose vehicle for EMT issuance. Should the Commission look at segregation for banks anyway, the EBA lists the side effects (lost lending capacity where LCR run-off rates are below 100%, possible double counting against the LCR and NSFR, and a preferred position for token holders over depositors) and suggests a supervisory discretion to require issuance through an EMI subsidiary where scale warrants it.

Own funds, redemption timing and crisis tools

The own funds tests in Article 35(1), at least the highest of EUR 350,000, 2% of the average reserve of assets, or 25% of the previous year’s fixed overheads, and the add-on for significant tokens all scored “4”, mostly relevant and appropriately calibrated. For electronic money institutions issuing significant EMTs, Article 58(1)(b) applies Article 35(2), (3) and (5) and Article 45(5) instead of Article 5 of the E-Money Directive, not Article 35(1). The EBA’s asks concern scope and sensitivity: clarify whether issuer own funds and the capital for other services run by the same non-bank entity (an issuer that is also a CASP, for example) apply commensurately or cumulatively, and consider a risk-based calculation method plus wider supervisory powers to add own funds, since Article 35(3) allows discretion only by reference to issuance activities.

The trigger is a business-model shift the EBA reports: some CASPs, and potentially some issuers, use their own balance sheet for crypto-asset borrowing and lending or invest on their own account, taking credit risk, market risk and leverage that the current requirements do not capture. For CASPs, outside its direct remit, it supports aligning Title V capital with the Investment Firms Regulation and Directive, including replacing the closed list of deductible variable costs in the Article 67 fixed overheads calculation, and testing whether one amount per service class captures a CASP running several Class 2 or Class 3 services together.

On redemption, the EBA would keep the permanent right and fee ban and strengthen timing; it also favours standardised disclosures and stronger powers for significant tokens. MiCA gives holders a right to redeem “at any time” but sets no maximum period in business-as-usual conditions. The EBA wants one clarified with regard to market practice (it cites T+1, T+2 and T+4) and the Basel Committee’s SCO60 crypto-asset standard, aligned across the issuers in a multi-issuer scheme to remove incentives to run on one of them. It also flags “back door” fees, such as requiring a holder to open a specific wallet with the issuer before a redemption is processed.

Recovery and redemption plans under Articles 46 and 47 stay as they are for now: the EMT regime has not been tested by a market event and, at 1 September 2026, no ART had been authorised under MiCA. Further out, the EBA asks whether non-bank issuers need a crisis toolkit closer to bank resolution, such as a power to transfer a failing issuer’s token business and reserve assets to another issuer. The interest prohibition in Articles 40 and 50 should stay for both ARTs and EMTs.

Classification: financial instrument, ART and deposit definitions

Tokenised financial instruments should remain outside MiCA under point (a) of Article 2(4) and within MiFID, MiFIR and the securities markets rules, because tokenisation does not by itself change what an asset is. For banks the stakes are structural: CRD Annex I authorisations cross-refer to MiFID, collateral eligibility depends on classification, and the IFRS 9 and IAS 32 notion of a financial instrument feeds exposure values under the CRR. What the EBA does want is a harmonised EU definition of “financial instrument”, because the same token can be a financial instrument in one Member State and an ART in another, and ESA guidelines cannot settle a concept EU law leaves to national transposition. ESMA’s Article 2(5) guidelines, covered in our piece on ESMA’s CAFI guidelines on when a crypto-asset is a financial instrument, are the kind of convergence tool the EBA says cannot close that gap alone.

The ART and EMT definitions in points (6) and (7) of Article 3(1) draw the most detailed criticism. “Purports to maintain a stable value” has caused debate over what the reference asset is, since the assets allowed in the reserve under Article 36 need not be the referenced assets. The structures the EBA lists as problem cases include gold tokens with white papers that describe holders’ entitlements poorly; tokens referencing only money market fund shares invested in one currency; hedged pools built to track one currency but redeemable only in pool assets; tokens referencing mainly a financial instrument with a marginal link to an official currency, which could also undermine the Article 40 interest ban; and “wrapped” tokens mirroring a single-currency stablecoin where neither token is authorised as an EMT.

The EBA also reports arbitrage: tokens structured to look like ARTs to escape the stricter regimes for financial instruments and EMTs. It floats restricting what an ART may reference and, further out, says it “may also be considered” whether the ART is “essentially a redundant category” to be folded into the concept of financial instrument. That is a question put to the Commission, well short of a recommendation. It leaves open which evidence should decide stability: the white paper’s promises, the reserve and stabilisation design, or the token’s observed price behaviour.

Tokenised deposits are excluded from MiCA under point (b) of Article 2(4), but MiCA defines “deposit” by reference to the Deposit Guarantee Schemes Directive, and the CRR defines “credit institution” without defining “deposit”. The EBA wants a harmonised deposit definition for CRD and CRR purposes. Its working distinction: “native” tokens, recording the deposit balance on the ledger itself, can usually be treated as deposits, while “non-native” tokens representing a claim on a balance in a traditional ledger need case-by-case assessment and could be deposits, EMTs or Title II crypto-assets. In the EBA’s Spring 2026 risk assessment questionnaire, 26% of responding banks expected to deploy tokenised deposits within three years, against 16% in 2024, and the EBA plans to report on classification features in Q4 2026.

A procedural fix closes the section. EBA opinions under Article 20(5) on crypto-assets presented as ARTs come only after the competent authority has found the application complete and notified its draft decision; the EBA calls the deadline very challenging and wants more time and the ability to request further information from the issuer through the competent authority.

Crypto-asset lending and DeFi access: a candidate new CASP service

Asked whether crypto-asset lending and borrowing should be regulated, the EBA answered yes. The January 2025 EBA-ESMA joint report (EBA/Rep/2025/01) found 16 of 37 national authorities identifying crypto lending or borrowing providers. EBA analysis in 2026, with key findings due later this year, finds DeFi lending protocols being used to lend EMTs, and CASPs increasingly give clients access to DeFi through their own interfaces.

The stablecoin detail deserves a close read. According to the EBA, two stablecoins dominate crypto lending and borrowing in line with their market capitalisation: one is an EMT issued by an EMI; the other meets the EMT definition but cannot be offered to the public or admitted to trading in the EU, because its issuer has not sought MiCA authorisation. Lending an EMT earns holders a yield where issuers and CASPs are barred from paying interest under Articles 40 and 50, which the EBA reads as a regulatory arbitrage risk. It adds consumer risks identified with ESMA (misleading marketing, missing information on fees, yields and collateral changes) and structural ones such as collateral chains from leveraged market making, lending without creditworthiness checks, and commingling of client assets.

Crypto-asset lending is absent from MiCA’s list of crypto-asset services, which is why the EBA frames its ask as extending that list. It recommends a cost-benefit analysis of two changes: adding the intermediation of crypto-asset borrowing and lending as a CASP service, and setting requirements for CASPs that give clients access to DeFi lending protocols. The candidate requirements read like a design brief:

• suitability tests and leverage limits;
• detailed risk disclosure, with extra warnings where a CASP gives access to DeFi that activity on truly decentralised protocols is unregulated;
• a prohibition on CASPs intermediating or giving access to lending involving tokens that meet the ART or EMT definition but lack MiCA authorisation;
• a certification regime for DeFi lending protocols, covering at least resilience to cyber-attack.

The prohibition is the item that connects directly to the EBA’s finding that one of the two dominant lending stablecoins is unauthorised in the EU.

PSD3 and the PSR: the double-licence question for CASPs handling EMTs

The EBA’s answer carries a caveat in its first line: as at 1 September 2026 the PSD3 and Payment Services Regulation (PSR) texts had not been published in the Official Journal, so its comments rest on the compromise texts from technical trilogues concluded in April 2026. On that basis it welcomes the clarifications, which it describes as broadly consistent with its June 2025 Opinion on the interplay between PSD2 and MiCA (EBA/Op/2025/08).

CASPs that provide payment services with EMTs still need both licences under those texts, as the EBA reads them. The perimeter around the double authorisation moves: exchanges of EMTs for funds or crypto-assets where the CASP deals in its own name, and exchanges of EMTs for crypto-assets where the CASP intermediates between buyers and sellers, are carved out of PSD3 and the PSR. The texts also set an authorisation route for CASPs applying to become payment institutions, clarify safeguarding for payment institutions handling EMT transactions, and switch off open banking interface requirements for those transactions.

The EBA finds two new problems. The PSR inserts an amendment to Article 60 MiCA letting payment institutions provide crypto-asset services on EMTs deemed equivalent to their authorised payment services by notification, without a CASP authorisation. That creates an asymmetry, since a CASP generally needs a payment licence for payment services, and deeming custody of crypto-assets equivalent to enabling cash to be placed on or withdrawn from a payment account sits awkwardly with the PSR’s own position that custody is not a payment service in itself.

The second is a safekeeping gap: Article 70(5) MiCA switches off the client-funds rules in Article 70(2) and (3) for CASPs that are also payment institutions, EMIs or credit institutions, while PSD3 safeguarding covers only funds received for payment services or e-money issuance. Client funds received for a non-payment crypto-asset service could fall under neither regime. Our guide to stablecoin reporting obligations under MiCAR and the PSD3 shift covers the EMT side of that interplay.

Pending publication, the EBA will keep monitoring the application of its June 2025 and February 2026 Opinions and continue convergence work with competent authorities.

Mixed-activity groups: a group-level return on the EBA’s wish list

For groups combining crypto-asset services with other activities, the EBA selected every oversight option the Commission offered except “other”: group-level reporting to a centralised authority, closer cooperation between the ESAs and national authorities, new supervisory colleges, and consolidated supervision. Arrangements for non-bank mixed-activity groups are, in its words, “largely non-existent”. EU law already provides sector-specific consolidated supervision, including prudential consolidation for qualifying investment-firm groups under Article 7 of the Investment Firms Regulation (EU) 2019/2033, but none of it is built for a group that mixes crypto-asset services with other activities; the conglomerates framework predates crypto activity, and the Article 119 MiCA colleges cover only issuers of significant ARTs and EMTs.

As a first step the EBA proposes group-level reporting (basic financial and prudential metrics, the volume and value of activities, assets, intra-group exposures), structured arrangements such as supervisory colleges, and powers to require an EU intermediate parent undertaking for groups originating outside the EU. The first item is the one for reporting teams: no dedicated group-level return exists for non-bank, mixed-activity crypto groups today, distinct from the sector-specific consolidated reporting that can already apply where a group qualifies under the banking or investment-firm regimes.

Any new structure would have to fit around PSD3 and the PSR, EU-level supervision of significant token issuers and, as the EBA puts it, the outcome of negotiations on the Commission’s market integration and supervision package. That package, published on 4 December 2025, proposes transferring to the EU level direct supervision of crypto-asset service providers and certain significant cross-border infrastructures, which could change who would receive CASP-level data in the first place.

The reporting mandate: what the EBA wants to replace in Article 22

Today’s architecture has three layers. Article 22 MiCA requires quarterly reporting for each ART with an issue value above EUR 100 million: number of holders, value issued and reserve size, average number and aggregate value of transactions per day, and an estimate of transactions associated with use as a means of exchange within a single currency area. Competent authorities can extend the obligation below the threshold, and Article 22(3) requires CASPs to give issuers the information they need. Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2902 implements that reporting through issuer templates S 01.00, S 02.00, S 03.01, S 03.02, S 04.01, S 04.02, S 04.03, S 04.04 and S 05.00, and CASP templates S 06.00, S 07.01, S 07.02, S 07.03, S 07.04 and S 08.00; S 08.00 is remitted to issuers daily. Under Article 58(3) MiCA, the ITS applies to EMTs denominated in a currency that is not an official currency of a Member State.

The EBA’s own-initiative Guidelines EBA/GL/2024/16 add what Level 1 does not reach, such as the significance assessment templates S 10.01 to S 10.03 and the own-funds templates S 09.01 and S 09.02, and extend selected ITS templates, S 01.00, S 02.00, S 03.01, S 03.02 and S 04.01 to S 04.04 for issuers plus S 06.01 and S 06.02 (defined in the Guidelines’ own annex, not Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2902) for CASP-sourced holder data, to issuers of EMTs in an EU currency; S 05.00 is not among the templates extended, and the Guidelines’ own-funds templates do not carry the general EUR 100 million threshold. The Guidelines cover S 03.03, S 07.01, S 07.02, S 07.04, S 07.05 and S 08.00. The means-of-exchange methodology sits in Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/298.

The EBA’s verdict is blunt. MiCA gives no general mandate for issuer and CASP reporting, a gap it says it raised during the legislative process and in its September 2023 technical advice, and the Article 22(7) mandate cannot cover data points supervisors need on own funds, liquidity and significance. Article 22(3) imposes a statutory duty on CASPs to inform issuers; the gap concerns data beyond that duty. Its Guidelines are a workaround with two weaknesses: the EBA cannot bind CASPs without a legal mandate, so issuers obtain CASP data through contracts, “a weaker and more convoluted basis”; and firms work with two sets of measures instead of one. For Title V purposes there is no fix unless ESMA issues its own guidelines.

The ask is a mandate, or mandates, for cohesive reporting by issuers and CASPs, including CASP-held information relevant to ART and EMT supervision, proportionate to the scale of issuance and limited to the data points supervisors need. CASP reporting should serve conduct and market monitoring and support issuer supervision, giving supervisors and, where appropriate, resolution authorities reliable, standardised information, because effective supervision “cannot rely on fragmented information, ad hoc data requests or rough market estimates”.

For CASP data teams, the practical content is a change of addressee. The holdings and transaction data a CASP sends issuers today under Article 22(3), the ITS and contracts could become a direct statutory return, with the CASP answerable to a supervisor for its accuracy. That is my reading of the direction, and the EBA leaves the format open. The one data point it singles out for clarification whatever happens is the Article 22(1)(d) means-of-exchange estimate, where geographic attribution and the purpose of transactions are very difficult to establish from blockchain data. Our MiCAR reporting obligations guide for CASPs maps the current obligations these proposals would build on.

Frequently Asked Questions

If the Commission proposes a direct CASP reporting mandate, when would CASPs actually start filing?

No date exists. Article 140 requires the Commission’s report by 30 June 2027, with a legislative proposal only “where appropriate”. A mandate would need Level 1 legislation; any templates would then follow either in technical standards or under the EBA’s existing guideline powers, depending on what the adopted legislation provides. Any first reference date quoted before that sequence has run is speculation.

We are an EMI issuing a USD-denominated EMT alongside a non-EU affiliate. Does the EBA response make the arrangement unlawful?

The response has no legal effect on the arrangement. The EBA frames its measures as applying if such schemes are permissible, and the Commission has not answered the two Q&As on that question. What applies now depends on the token’s significance and any supervisory measures imposed.

Article 45(4) liquidity stress testing applies to electronic money institutions issuing significant EMTs through Article 58(1)(a), while Article 58(2) allows competent authorities to impose the relevant requirements on electronic money institutions issuing non-significant EMTs where necessary. Own-funds measures are governed separately by Articles 35 and 58. Article 46 governs recovery measures, while Article 47 governs the redemption plan.

Would a lower deposit floor affect EMTs issued by credit institutions?

Not directly. Article 54’s investment rules and the reserve requirements for significant EMTs do not apply to credit institutions issuing EMTs, and the EBA recommends keeping that position. The floor debate concerns EMI and ART issuers.

Do tokenised deposits fall under the Article 22 returns?

A token that qualifies as a deposit is excluded from MiCA and stays within bank regulation and reporting. The caution concerns “non-native” tokens representing a claim on a traditional ledger balance: if a case-by-case assessment classifies one as an EMT or a Title II crypto-asset, MiCA obligations follow from that classification.

Does the call to clarify redemption timing mean T+1 will become mandatory?

The EBA proposes no figure. It cites T+1, T+2 and T+4 as emerging practice and asks for a maximum business-as-usual period, leaving the number to the Commission.

Which authority would receive group-level or CASP-level reports?

The response leaves that open. It refers to a centralised authority, to supervisors and to resolution authorities, and ties the design to the negotiations on the Commission’s December 2025 market integration and supervision package.

Related Articles

• EC MiCAR Review: What European CASPs Should Submit: the Commission consultation this EBA response answers, section by section.
• MiCAR Token Classification: Reporting Obligations for ARTs, EMTs, and Utility Tokens: how each token category maps to authorisation, reserve and reporting duties.
• EBA-NYDFS Stablecoin MoU: What EU EMT Issuers Should Know: the information-sharing arrangement for cross-border dollar stablecoins.
• FATF DeFi Report: When Control Brings a DeFi Arrangement Within the FATF Standards: the AML view of the DeFi arrangements CASPs give clients access to.
• MiCAR Reporting Obligations for CASPs: Complete Implementation Guide: the current CASP obligations, from authorisation to record-keeping.

Key Takeaways

• For entities subject to the current Article 22 framework, including non-EU-currency EMTs through Article 58(3), the Q3 2026 cycle is unchanged: quarterly CASP data are due to issuers by 21 October 2026 and issuer returns by 11 November 2026, subject to the next-working-day rule in Article 3(3) of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2902.
• Diary date: 30 June 2027, the Article 140 deadline for the Commission’s report and any legislative proposal.
• Issuers: document the location logic behind S 01.00 holder counts now, since a legal “EU holder” definition is the EBA’s foundation for future reserve and reporting rules.
• CASPs: map the information supplied to issuers under Article 22(3) separately from any additional contractual data requests. A new reporting mandate could change or supplement those arrangements; do not assume that direct supervisory reporting would abolish issuer-facing reporting.
• EMI issuers in or near a multi-issuer scheme: Article 45(4) liquidity stress testing applies to electronic money institutions issuing significant EMTs through Article 58(1)(a) and may be imposed on electronic money institutions issuing non-significant EMTs under Article 58(2); the EBA’s proposed pre-issuance non-objection step is not adopted.
• Reserve managers: any cut to the 30% or 60% floor is tied to stricter non-deposit assets, so the Article 36(4) and 38(5) RTS remain the constraint to track.
• Lending desks: the proposed ban covers tokens that meet the EMT or ART definition without MiCA authorisation, the category of one of the two stablecoins the EBA finds dominating crypto lending.

Sources and References

• EBA press release, The EBA identifies priorities for the review of MiCA (24 September 2026): eba.europa.eu
• EBA, Response to the EC targeted consultation on the review of MiCA (24 September 2026): EBA response (PDF)
• Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 on markets in crypto-assets (MiCA): EUR-Lex
• Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2902 of 20 November 2024 on reporting related to ARTs and to EMTs denominated in a non-EU currency: EUR-Lex
• EBA Guidelines EBA/GL/2024/16 on templates to assist competent authorities regarding issuers’ compliance under Titles III and IV of MiCA (18 December 2024): EBA final report (PDF)
• EBA-ESMA Joint Report, Recent developments in crypto-assets (EBA/Rep/2025/01): EBA (PDF)
• EBA, The EBA’s supervisory role under MiCA (remittance dates, submission route): eba.europa.eu
• Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/298 on the methodology for transactions associated with use as a means of exchange: EUR-Lex
• EBA Final Report on draft RTS on the liquidity requirements of the reserve of assets under Article 36(4) MiCA (EBA/RTS/2024/10, 13 June 2024): EBA (PDF)
• EBA Opinion on the Commission’s amendments to the RTS on liquidity requirements of the reserve of assets (October 2025): EBA (PDF)
• EBA Opinion on the interplay between PSD2 and MiCA (EBA/Op/2025/08, June 2025): EBA (PDF)
• European Commission, Commission seeks feedback on the functioning of EU crypto-assets rules (20 May 2026): finance.ec.europa.eu
• European Commission, Targeted consultation on the review of the MiCA Regulation (deadline extended to 30 September 2026, 23:59 CEST): finance.ec.europa.eu
• ESRB Recommendation on third-country multi-issuer stablecoin schemes, of 25 September 2025 (ESRB/2025/9): ESRB press release and Recommendation (PDF)
• ESMA Final Report, Guidelines on the conditions and criteria for the qualification of crypto-assets as financial instruments (Article 2(5) MiCA): ESMA (PDF)
• European Commission, Questions and answers on the market integration package (4 December 2025): ec.europa.eu
• Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 establishing the EBA: EUR-Lex
• Regulation (EU) 2019/2033 on the prudential requirements of investment firms (Investment Firms Regulation), Article 7 on prudential consolidation: EUR-Lex

Next checkpoint: the Article 140 report due by 30 June 2027

Three further EBA inputs are in the pipeline before the Commission reports: lessons from the first significance assessment cycle, the key findings of its 2026 analysis on DeFi lending, due later this year, and its Q4 2026 report on tokenised deposit classification. The Commission’s Article 140 report is due by 30 June 2027. The EBA’s response does not itself change the reporting calendar: under the current framework, the Q3 2026 CASP quarterly remittance date remains 21 October 2026 and the issuer remittance date remains 11 November 2026, subject to the next-working-day rule in Article 3(3) of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2902.

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.