The European crypto market is on the verge of a new debate. With the MiCA regulation largely in effect since early 2025, European policymakers are taking a critical look at its enforcement. The question is increasingly being raised: shouldn’t the supervision of crypto companies be centralized under the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), rather than with individual member states?
MiCA as a Common Foundation #
MiCA, or Markets in Crypto-Assets, was established to create a clear set of rules for crypto service providers within the European Union. This includes exchanges, custodians, and other companies active in the sector. The idea behind it is clear: less fragmentation, more clarity, and a more stable playing field for everyone.
In practice, achieving that unity has proven difficult, says Lewin Boehnke, Head of Strategy at Crypto Finance Group, in an interview with Cointelegraph. Each EU country evaluates license applications in its own way. This leads to significant differences in speed and strictness. While some countries have already approved dozens of firms, others are stuck with only a handful of licenses.
Differences Between Countries Cause Tension #
According to Boehnke, this inequality is starting to cause friction. According to various involved parties, the issue lies not with the law itself, but with how countries interpret and apply MiCA. A recent evaluation of supervision in Malta, for example, showed that procedures are not followed with equal care everywhere. Such signals reinforce the feeling that the current approach is falling short.
Therefore, support is growing for a larger role for ESMA. With a central supervisor, rules would be enforced consistently everywhere. France, Austria, and Italy have already indicated they are seriously considering such a move. The model resembles that of the United States, where regulators like the SEC play a central role.
A Pivotal Moment for the European Crypto Market #
Proponents point mainly to efficiency. Less consultation between countries could mean faster decisions and more clarity for businesses. At the same time, many details still require clarification. This is especially true for technical rules that are currently being interpreted differently.
A good example is the requirement for custodians to make client assets ‘immediately’ available. What exactly this entails has not yet been sharply defined. Must crypto be directly withdrawable, or is a fast payout in traditional currency sufficient? Such questions are still awaiting clear guidelines.
The debate over centralization shows that MiCA is not an endpoint, but the beginning of a new phase. The coming period will reveal whether Europe opts for tighter, central supervision or sticks with national enforcement.