MiCA, one year on.

MiCA had three goals: protect consumers, make the market fairer and create a single European field where one licence works in every member state. A year after full application the balance is mixed. Protection of client assets improved measurably, consolidation went faster than expected and passporting works, but implementation still differs by country.

For users the difference is mostly visible in what is no longer possible: certain tokens left the listings, withdrawals require more information and marketing became soberer. What users did not get is deposit insurance. That remains the biggest misunderstanding in the communication around the regulation.

The biggest unresolved knot is not in the law but next to it: banks. A licence makes a provider legitimate, but without a stable banking relationship it cannot process euro. As long as that holds, the licence is worth less in practice than on paper.

MiCA is not a tax law and not a ban. It is a licensing regime: anyone offering crypto services in the EU must meet capital, custody, disclosure and governance requirements. It also imposes rules on stablecoin issuers, with reserve obligations and redemption rights.

What it does not cover matters just as much. MiCA does not regulate taxation, largely excludes non-fungible tokens and says little about decentralised protocols without a clear issuer. Anyone reading that crypto is now fully regulated is reading too quickly.

In practice the most visible consequences are stricter identification, mandatory information on withdrawals and the removal of certain tokens from listings. Protection of client assets clearly improved on paper, but there is no guarantee fund as with savings deposits.

The tone of marketing changed too. Return promises and influencer campaigns without risk statements became rarer, partly through supervision and partly because platforms do not want to endanger their licence. That is progress, even if enforcement remains uneven.