Non-MiCAR-Compliant Stablecoins: The FMA Relays ESMA’s Opinion

On 23 October 2026 the Liechtenstein Financial Market Authority (FMA) published a notice on ESMA’s opinion of 8 October 2026 (ESMA75-113276571-1742) on non-MiCAR-compliant stablecoins, and stated that it will take the opinion into account in its supervision. ESMA’s position is that crypto-asset service providers (CASPs) should not provide crypto-asset services in relation to asset-referenced tokens (ARTs) or e-money tokens (EMTs) that fail the MiCAR conditions for a lawful offer to the public or admission to trading. For legacy positions, which ESMA asks supervisors to have remediated within three months of publication, the FMA notice names the date: 8 January 2027.

The relay matters in Liechtenstein because the firms it reaches are a mixed group: CASPs authorised under Article 63 MiCAR, banks and other financial entities providing crypto-asset services under Article 60, and operators of trading platforms that list tokens on their own initiative. The 2026 opinion also reaches further than ESMA’s January 2025 statement. That statement tied the exit to services amounting to an offer to the public or admission to trading and said mere custody and transfer should remain possible. The opinion lists custody and transfer among the services in scope and leaves room only for strictly limited wind-down functions, which supervisors may allow.

Related reading: Non-MiCA-Compliant ARTs and EMTs: ESMA’s Three-Month Ceiling

From the TVTG transition to 8 January 2027: the dates

Liechtenstein reached MiCAR by a different route from the EU Member States, so the calendar runs on two tracks: the EU dates, and the dates on which the same rules took effect through national law and the EEA Agreement.

Two entries carry conditions that a short table cannot hold. The three-month ceiling in paragraph 27 of the opinion is addressed to supervisors: where an NCA identifies remaining legacy exposures, it should require remediation as soon as possible and no later than three months after publication. The FMA converted that into the calendar date. The 1 July 2026 entry is the FMA’s statement that registered VT service providers whose business now falls under MiCAR could keep operating under the TVTG until that date, and needed an Article 63 authorisation to continue beyond it.

How an ESMA opinion lands on an FMA-supervised firm

The opinion rests on Article 29(1)(a) of the ESMA Regulation, Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010, under which ESMA provides opinions to national competent authorities to build a common supervisory culture and consistent supervisory practices (paragraphs 1 and 2). Paragraph 9 states that it is addressed primarily to NCAs, to support their assessment of specific business set-ups. Paragraph 28 says ESMA will monitor its timely application together with the NCAs.

In Liechtenstein the FMA is the competent authority under Article 93(1) MiCAR, as Article 20 EWR-MiCA-DG sets out. Its notice is short. In the German original the FMA writes that it will take the ESMA opinion into account in its supervision (“in ihrer Aufsicht berücksichtigen”), and it uses “sollen” for what CASPs should do and for the legacy positions that should be settled, which keeps ESMA’s “should” modality. The English page carries the FMA’s own notice that it was produced by automated machine translation, and its “must” for the legacy positions has no counterpart in the German text. A compliance file that quotes the FMA is safer quoting the German.

The binding obligation sits underneath, in MiCAR itself. The opinion’s reasoning runs through Article 66(1), the duty of CASPs to act honestly, fairly and professionally in the best interests of clients and prospective clients (paragraph 11).

MiCAR applies in Liechtenstein as EEA law since Decision No 041/2025 entered into force on 24 June 2025. Before that, Article 37(1) EWR-MiCA-DG made MiCAR and its implementing acts applicable as national law until their incorporation into the EEA Agreement. What the opinion adds is ESMA’s reading of an obligation that already binds every CASP the FMA supervises. Liechtenstein law and the reporting calendar stay as they were.

The narrow point for EEA firms is wording. Paragraphs 21 and 22 speak of “EU clients” and of availability “in the Union”. EFTA’s guide to reading EEA law explains that, under the horizontal adaptations in Protocol 1, references to the territory of the EU in incorporated acts are understood as references to the territory of the EEA, unless a sectoral or specific adaptation provides otherwise. The opinion is a supervisory instrument and has not itself been incorporated.

My reading is that an FMA-supervised CASP should treat its EEA client base as the relevant population, because the MiCAR provisions the opinion interprets apply across the EEA, and should confirm that reading with the FMA. Our note on MiCAR in Norway and EEA applicability covers the EEA side from Norway’s position.

What moved between the January 2025 statement and the 2026 opinion

The FMA notice opens by recalling the January 2025 statement, so a Liechtenstein file needs both documents side by side. They answer different questions.

Paragraph 7 states that the opinion does not change the position in Q&A 2404 and the accompanying statement, and does not imply that every service in relation to an ART or EMT is an offer to the public or admission to trading. The same paragraph frames the question as whether continued services are compatible with the CASP obligations in Title V of MiCA, and the opinion answers it through the CASP’s own conduct duty. Paragraph 13 explains why: the risks come from the token’s non-compliant status and the absence of issuer-level safeguards, which paragraph 17 illustrates with redemption rights and reserve-of-assets requirements. In ESMA’s view a CASP cannot adequately identify, manage or mitigate those risks, and that should give rise to a presumption that providing any MiCA service in such a token is incompatible with Article 66(1).

The firm that keeps a token listed behind a risk banner, or asks clients to tick an acknowledgement, is relying on what paragraph 19 says would not sufficiently address ESMA’s concerns. ESMA’s reasoning there is that warnings do not prevent the continued availability and use of the tokens, that disclosures are unlikely to convey the significance of the missing safeguards, and that expecting clients to assess those gaps is “highly unlikely” to let them evaluate the risks accurately. Communication survives in the 2026 text in a smaller role: paragraph 24 expects residual services to be clearly communicated to clients.

On my reading, the January 2025 sentence that mere custody and transfer should remain possible now operates only inside the residual-services frame of paragraphs 23 and 24. ESMA presents the opinion as complementing its earlier guidance (paragraph 4) and does not withdraw that sentence expressly, so the point is interpretive and worth putting to the FMA directly.

Which tokens count as non-MiCAR-compliant stablecoins

Footnote 1 of the opinion defines the population: ARTs or EMTs in respect of which the conditions for a lawful offer to the public or admission to trading in the EU under Title III or Title IV, including any applicable exemptions or transitional arrangements, are not met. The test is token by token and runs through the issuer-side conditions.

For an EMT, Article 48(1) MiCAR allows an offer to the public or admission to trading only by the issuer, and only where the issuer is authorised as a credit institution or an electronic money institution and has notified a crypto-asset white paper to its competent authority and published it in accordance with Article 51. Other persons may offer or seek admission to trading with the issuer’s written consent (second subparagraph). Both limbs of the first subparagraph count. An EMT whose issuer holds an EMI licence in the EEA but never notified and published the white paper still fails the test.

For an ART, the FMA’s MiCAR page describes the activity as reserved to licensed credit institutions or to persons authorised under Article 21. Article 16(2) carves out two cases from the authorisation requirement: an ART whose average outstanding value, calculated at the end of each calendar day over 12 months, never exceeds EUR 5 000 000 where the issuer is not linked to a network of other exempt issuers, and an offer addressed solely to qualified investors where only they can hold the token. In both cases the issuer still draws up a white paper under Article 19 and notifies it. Transitional arrangements also count under footnote 1. The EBA’s July 2024 statement records the Article 143(4) and (5) arrangements for ARTs issued before 30 June 2024 and adds that no similar transitional arrangement applies for EMTs; our article on the EBA MiCA statement on ARTs and EMTs sets out those issuer-side rules.

Because neither the opinion nor the FMA notice names any token, each firm classifies the tokens it services. The January 2025 statement asked CASPs in doubt about a token’s classification to contact their NCA, and that route remains the sensible one in borderline cases. On the positive side, the EBA statement points consumers to the ESMA register, and Article 21(7a) EWR-MiCA-DG allows the FMA to keep a public register that can include banks, EEA credit institutions and e-money institutions permitted to offer EMTs in Liechtenstein under Article 48. Our guide to MiCAR token classification for ARTs, EMTs and utility tokens covers the definitional step that comes first.

On my reading, the TVTG offers no second home for these tokens. The FMA describes the TVTG and MiCAR as coexisting with mutually exclusive scopes since the TVTG was adjusted on 1 February 2025, and its example of what may fall under the TVTG is non-fungible tokens, which Article 2(3) MiCAR excludes. A token that meets the ART or EMT definition sits in MiCAR’s scope whether or not its issuer complied, so a TVTG registration cannot carry services in it.

Trading platforms: own-initiative listings and the sell-only phase

Trading platform operators were the first CASPs the January 2025 statement addressed, and Q&A 2404 treats them most directly: an operator that lists ARTs or EMTs whose issuer is not authorised is a person seeking admission to trading on its own initiative. The 2026 opinion adds the conduct layer on top, so a listing can fail on two grounds at once.

The operating rules are where a delisting gets its legal footing. Article 76(1) MiCAR requires trading platforms to maintain clear operating rules covering admission processes, any exclusion categories adopted by the operator, conditions for continued access to trading and circumstances in which trading may be suspended. Article 76(1)(b) expressly qualifies exclusion categories with “if any”. A platform removing non-compliant ARTs or EMTs should review whether its existing admission, continued-access and suspension rules adequately support that decision, and amend them where necessary. Article 76(1) does not require a separate operating-rule amendment for every delisting.

The sell-only phase raises an operational trap. Paragraph 27 says any continuation should be strictly limited to sell-only, conversion, transfer or withdrawal functionalities; paragraph 24 says residual services should not facilitate new acquisitions, trading or continued market availability. A sell-only order book still needs buyers. Under paragraph 22, controls should prevent EU clients from acquiring or increasing positions, so a sell-only arrangement has to be assessed against that expectation.

Article 76(5) bars the operator from dealing on own account on the platform it operates, including where it provides exchange services, while Article 76(6) permits matched-principal trading only where the client has consented and the authority is given information on its use. Neither provision by itself establishes a mandatory architecture for every residual conversion. The FMA should be consulted on the proposed execution model before a sell-only or conversion window is implemented.

The FMA’s statutory toolkit for platforms is wide. Article 21(3) EWR-MiCA-DG lets it suspend trading in a crypto-asset for up to 30 consecutive working days on reasonable suspicion of an infringement, prohibit trading on a platform where it finds one, and require any person to take steps to reduce the size of its position or exposure in crypto-assets. The opinion does not say which of these tools an NCA should use, and the FMA notice does not either.

Banks and other Article 60 providers in Liechtenstein

For firms based in Liechtenstein, crypto-asset services under MiCAR run after 1 July 2026 through one of two doors. The FMA’s MiCAR page states that registered VT service providers needed an Article 63 authorisation to continue beyond that date, and that for financial undertakings listed in Article 59(1)(b) MiCAR, Article 60 applies instead of Article 63. Our note on the MiCA CASP transitional period end covers the wind-down side of that deadline.

The opinion’s wording leaves a gap for the second door. Paragraph 25 asks NCAs to assess “any authorised CASP operating within their jurisdiction”, and the FMA’s English notice speaks of CASPs “authorized under MiCAR”. A Liechtenstein bank providing crypto-asset services under Article 60(1) may do so after notifying the FMA at least 40 working days before providing those services for the first time; it holds no Article 63 authorisation. Article 60(10), however, disapplies only Articles 62, 63, 64, 67, 83 and 84 for these entities, so Article 66 applies to them in full. Recital 78 describes such firms as deemed to be crypto-asset service providers and subject to all CASP requirements except authorisation, own funds and the qualifying-holdings procedure.

Because the opinion’s reasoning is built on Article 66(1), my reading is that it reaches Article 60 providers in the same way. The FMA’s own powers point the same way: where necessary for its tasks, Article 21(5) EWR-MiCA-DG lets it appoint an observer at a provider of crypto-asset services under Article 60, alongside MiCA institutions, banks that offer ARTs or EMTs or seek their admission to trading, and e-money institutions that do so for EMTs. E-money institutions are a narrower case. Article 60(4) lets them provide custody and transfer services only for the EMTs they issue themselves, so under Article 60 alone their services cannot extend to third-party tokens.

Controls and the evidence the FMA can ask for

Paragraph 22 expects appropriate technical, contractual and organisational controls to prevent the availability of non-compliant ARTs and EMTs, including controls that stop EU clients from acquiring or increasing positions. Paragraph 26 asks NCAs to ensure those controls prevent continued or systematic availability. Residual services, where an NCA allows them, should be time-limited, risk-based, clearly communicated and closely supervised (paragraphs 24 and 27).

Because the opinion prescribes no report, template or notification, the evidence will sit in records the firm already has to keep: Article 68(9) MiCAR requires CASPs to arrange for records of all crypto-asset services, activities, orders and transactions, sufficient for the competent authority to ascertain compliance with all obligations, including those towards clients, kept for five years and up to seven where the authority requests it. On the Liechtenstein side, Article 21(3)(a) EWR-MiCA-DG allows the FMA to require any person to provide the information and documents needed to enforce MiCAR, and Article 21(3)(x) allows it to prescribe additional reporting obligations or shorter reporting intervals. Our MiCAR reporting obligations guide for CASPs maps the recurring returns that sit alongside these powers.

My working list of what that file should be able to show, mapped to the paragraphs, is short:

• a token inventory recording, for each ART and EMT serviced, the Title III or Title IV basis relied on, including any exemption or transitional arrangement (footnote 1);
• client positions per token at 8 October 2026 and their run-down through the remediation window, separating EEA clients from others (paragraphs 22 and 27);
• a dated log of each control change across channels, including web, app and API access, and the contractual changes to client terms (paragraph 22);
• copies and dates of client communications on the residual services (paragraph 24);
• a log of residual instructions executed, by type: sale, conversion, transfer, withdrawal, safekeeping (paragraphs 24 and 27).

Each item answers a question that follows from the assessment the opinion asks NCAs to carry out; the list itself is my construction, not an FMA or ESMA requirement.

Where the opinion and the FMA notice stop short

Four questions remain open after reading both documents, and each affects what the file should show.

The first is safekeeping after the ceiling. Paragraph 24 lists liquidation, conversion, withdrawal, transfer or safekeeping of existing holdings as permissible residual services; paragraph 27 lists sell-only, conversion, transfer or withdrawal, without safekeeping. Neither paragraph says what a CASP does with a holding whose client never instructs a sale or withdrawal before the ceiling passes.

The second is the client perimeter. The operative paragraphs speak of EU clients. A Liechtenstein CASP with clients resident outside the EEA finds nothing in the opinion on them, although Article 66(1) runs to all clients and prospective clients.

The third is the “authorised CASP” wording, discussed above for Article 60 providers. The fourth is process: the FMA notice states that the opinion will be taken into account in supervision and says nothing about a questionnaire, a deadline for confirmation or an attestation. Until the FMA says more, the date it has named is the only fixed point.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does the opinion cover clients of a Liechtenstein CASP who live in Switzerland or elsewhere outside the EEA?

The opinion’s operative paragraphs refer to EU clients and to availability in the Union, and they say nothing about clients outside it. The underlying Article 66(1) duty is owed to clients and prospective clients generally, and the FMA notice does not address the point. A firm serving non-EEA clients in a non-compliant token is making a judgment the opinion does not settle; the question belongs with the FMA, with its answer kept on file.

Can a professional or institutional client opt in to keep trading a non-compliant EMT?

The opinion contains no professional-client carve-out, and paragraph 19 says reliance on client acknowledgements would not sufficiently address ESMA’s concerns. At issuer level, Article 16(2)(b) exempts an offer addressed solely to qualified investors, where only they can hold the token, from authorisation, provided the white paper is drawn up and notified. A token that meets that exemption is compliant under footnote 1. A client’s opt-in to a non-compliant token creates no equivalent status, and Article 48 contains no qualified-investor exemption for EMTs; its exemptions in paragraphs 4 and 5 refer to exemptions under Directive 2009/110/EC.

We are an EU CASP passporting into Liechtenstein. Whose reading of the opinion applies?

Under Article 3(1)(33)(f) MiCAR, a CASP’s home Member State is the one where it has its registered office, and recital 76 places authorisation with that Member State’s competent authority. Paragraph 25 of the opinion also asks NCAs to assess authorised CASPs “operating within their jurisdiction”, which on its words can include a host authority looking at services provided into its territory. My working assumption is that the home authority’s application of the opinion sets the firm’s controls, while paragraph 25 leaves room for the FMA to look at what reaches Liechtenstein clients.

If we stop providing a service altogether, rather than dropping the tokens, does our authorisation change?

Article 3(2) EWR-MiCA-DG allows the FMA to adjust the scope of an authorisation where a crypto-asset service it covers is permanently no longer provided by the CASP. A firm that closes its trading platform entirely meets that condition; a firm that only removes certain tokens from an ongoing service does not.

An ART issuer applied for authorisation before 30 July 2024 and is still waiting. Is its token non-compliant?

Article 143(4) MiCAR lets an issuer, other than a credit institution, that issued an ART in accordance with applicable law before 30 June 2024 continue until it is granted or refused authorisation under Article 21, provided it applied before 30 July 2024. Footnote 1 of the opinion counts transitional arrangements, so a token in that position is outside the definition while the arrangement lasts. If authorisation is refused, the arrangement ends and the token falls inside the definition. No similar arrangement exists for EMTs.

Is a CASP that only provides advice or portfolio management in scope?

Paragraph 21 names advice and portfolio management among the services in scope, and the verbs it uses include “increase their exposure to” and “maintain”. The residual functions in paragraphs 24 and 27 are all exit mechanics: liquidation, sell-only, conversion, withdrawal, transfer and safekeeping. A recommendation or discretionary decision to hold a non-compliant token falls on the maintain side of that line. The opinion does not say whether advice limited to exiting a position counts as a residual service.

Related Articles

• Non-MiCA-Compliant ARTs and EMTs: ESMA’s Three-Month Ceiling: the EU-level reading of the same opinion, paragraph by paragraph.
• MiCAR in Norway: EEA Applicability and CASP Reporting After the Norges Bank Crypto Survey: how MiCAR reaches an EEA EFTA State and what CASPs there report.
• MiCAR Token Classification: Reporting Obligations for ARTs, EMTs, and Utility Tokens: the classification step that decides which Title applies to a token.
• EBA MiCA Statement on ARTs and EMTs: Issuer Takeaways: issuer-side requirements, including the ART transitional regime.
• MiCA CASP Wind-Down: What Unauthorised Providers Must Do as the Transitional Period Ends on 1 July 2026: client-asset wind-down when the CASP transition closes.
• MiCAR Reporting Obligations for CASPs: Complete Implementation Guide: the recurring MiCAR returns and notifications for CASPs.

Key Takeaways

• Quote the FMA from its German notice of 23 October 2026, which uses “sollen” and “berücksichtigen”; the English version is a machine translation.
• Test every serviced ART and EMT against footnote 1, including both limbs of Article 48(1) for EMTs; an EEA-licensed issuer alone does not settle compliance.
• Custody and transfer are in scope in 2026; plan them only as residual exit functions the FMA may allow, not as a continuing service line.
• Trading platforms: review the Article 76(1) admission, exclusion, continued-access and suspension rules; amend them where necessary, and assess any proposed sell-only arrangement against the restrictions on new acquisitions and the applicable trading-platform requirements.
• Banks using Article 60: Article 66 applies to you in full under Article 60(10), so treat the opinion as reaching you unless the FMA says otherwise.
• Keep the evidence under Article 68(9) MiCAR; the FMA can request it under Article 21(3)(a) EWR-MiCA-DG.

Sources and References

• ESMA, Opinion on the provision of crypto asset services in relation to non-MiCA-compliant asset-referenced tokens and e-money tokens, ESMA75-113276571-1742, 8 October 2026: ESMA opinion (PDF)
• ESMA, “ESMA sets out supervisory expectations on services related to unauthorised stablecoins”, 8 October 2026: ESMA news item
• ESMA, Public Statement on the provision of certain crypto-asset services in relation to non-MiCA compliant ARTs and EMTs, ESMA75-223375936-6099, 17 January 2025: ESMA statement (PDF)
• European Commission answer, Q&A ESMA_QA_2404, scope of public offering: ESMA Q&A tool
• FMA, “ESMA-Opinion zum Umgang mit nicht MiCAR-konformen Stablecoins”, 23 October 2026: FMA news (German original) and FMA news (English, machine-translated)
• FMA, “Statement der ESMA zu den Übergangsbestimmungen nach der MiCAR sowie Warnung vor Risiken”, 21 January 2025: FMA news
• FMA, MiCAR page (relationship between MiCAR and TVTG; EWR-MiCA-DG): FMA MiCAR
• Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 on markets in crypto-assets (MiCAR), Articles 2(3), 3(1)(33), 16, 19, 21, 48, 51, 59, 60, 63, 66, 68, 76, 93(1) and 143, recitals 76 and 78: EUR-Lex
• Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 establishing ESMA, Article 29(1)(a): EUR-Lex
• Directive 2009/110/EC on electronic money, as referred to in MiCAR Article 48(4) and (5): EUR-Lex
• Gesetz vom 5. Dezember 2024 zur Durchführung der Verordnung (EU) 2023/1114 (EWR-MiCA-DG), LGBl. 2025 Nr. 112, Articles 3, 20, 21, 37 and 38, as amended by LGBl. 2026 Nr. 277 (version in force from 1 September 2026): gesetze.li
• EFTA, EEA-Lex factsheet 32023R1114 (Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 041/2025): EEA-Lex
• EFTA, How to read EEA law (Protocol 1 horizontal adaptations): EFTA toolbox
• EBA, Statement on the application of MiCAR to ARTs and EMTs, 5 July 2024: EBA statement (PDF)

What a Liechtenstein CASP should have on file by 8 January 2027

The FMA has said the opinion will shape its supervision and has named the date. For a Liechtenstein CASP, bank or platform operator servicing ARTs or EMTs, the opinion’s expectations suggest three artifacts to hold before that date (a working list, not an FMA or ESMA requirement): a token-by-token classification under footnote 1, controls that stop EEA clients acquiring or increasing positions in any token that fails it, and an Article 68(9) record of every residual sale, conversion, transfer and withdrawal. Where the file depends on a reading the opinion leaves open, such as safekeeping of dormant holdings, non-EEA clients or Article 60 status, the decision to take now is whether to ask the FMA in writing and file its answer with the record.

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.