“It makes sense to treat it more or less like a version one. Some things work well, and now let’s go back to the drawing board and adjust what’s working potentially less well compared to other frameworks in the world,” Hansen added.
First-mover disadvantage
Stablecoins – tokens pegged to the value of a traditional financial asset, usually a fiat currency – appear to be the standout case of something working “less well” under MiCA, given comparisons with the GENIUS Act for regulating stablecoins in the U.S.
When MiCA was drafted between 2020 and 2023, lawmakers were primarily focused on exchanges and other crypto asset service providers (CASPs). Since then, stablecoins have been used more frequently across parts of the global payments landscape, and regulators have sought to respond by shaping the composition of their own frameworks.
“CASPs were more of a focal point when MiCA was drafted because at that time there were growing concerns with respect to different providers that could freely offer services because crypto assets weren’t regulated in any way, shape or form,” Eva Legler, counsel for financial institutions regulatory at multinational law firm Skadden, told CoinDesk. “At that point, stablecoins hadn’t grown to be as popular as they are these days.”
