Opinion
Europe does not lack rules, it lacks execution
The debate is almost always about stricter or looser rules. It should be about why the same regulation means something different in Frankfurt than in Valletta.
This is an opinion piece. It reflects the author's view and is not investment advice.
One text, twelve readings
MiCA is a regulation and therefore applies directly. Yet licensing times, depth of review and staffing differ sharply per supervisor.
That difference is not a detail: it decides where a provider bases itself, and therefore which supervisor effectively watches the European market.
Where the differences sit
| Element | On paper | In practice |
|---|---|---|
| Licensing period | Legally bounded | Months apart |
| Depth of review | Equal | Depends on capacity |
| Enforcement afterwards | Mandatory | Highly uneven |
| Publication of decisions | Recommended | Limited |
Capacity is the real policy instrument
A supervisor with a handful of specialists cannot assess dozens of files thoroughly. The rule becomes a formality and supervision becomes sampling.
Adding rules to a system that cannot carry the existing ones mostly raises compliance cost for those already doing it right.
- Shared review teams between member states
- Public processing times per supervisor
- Published reasoning for refusals and withdrawals
What a reader notices
To a private user a licence looks like a seal of approval. In reality it says something about a process, not about the daily follow-up afterwards.
As long as enforcement stays this uneven, a licence remains a starting permit rather than a guarantee.
Najczęstsze pytania
Does this mean MiCA fails?
No. The text sets a floor, but its value depends on execution per member state.
Is a licence worthless then?
Certainly not. It simply says less about ongoing supervision than many assume.
About the author
Amina volgt belastingregels rond crypto in Nederland en België. Ze vertaalt fiscale wetteksten naar praktische stappen voor particuliere beleggers.