What’s happening as Europe implements MiCA and the US delays crypto rules

Key takeaways

• Europe has moved from drafting to enforcing crypto rules under MiCA, giving businesses clear deadlines, licensing pathways and compliance steps across all EU member states.

• The United States still relies on a multi-agency, enforcement-driven framework, and major questions about token classification and market structure await new federal legislation.

• MiCA’s unique licensing model allows crypto companies to operate across the EU after approval in a country, encouraging companies to base their early expansion strategies in Europe.

• In the United States, unclear asset classification makes exchanges more cautious about listing and staking, while MiCA categories reduce legal uncertainty despite higher compliance costs.

Globally, two major economic blocs, the United States and Europe, take very different approaches to regulating cryptocurrencies.

On the one hand, the European Union has moved from rule-making to active enforcement. The Regulation of Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) came into force in stages. It already covers crypto asset service providers and market abuse, while the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) aims to integrate its provisional MiCA register into formal regulatory systems.

On the other hand, the US regulatory framework shows some progress, but a single, comprehensive framework is still lacking. The regulatory environment remains unclear and has been largely shaped by the enforcement actions of several agencies.

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) oversee securities, commodities, anti-money laundering (AML), and tax matters, respectively. States also license money transmitters, creating a complex, multi-agency structure.

This article explores the evolution of crypto rules in Europe and the United States, how companies build, list and scale in both economic blocs, and the side effects of evolving crypto regulations in these regions.

What “Europe moves forward” means: the MiCA framework

MiCA aims to establish uniform market rules across the EU for crypto assets that are not already covered by existing financial services legislation. The framework sets requirements for issuers and service providers of crypto assets such as exchanges, brokers, custodians and other intermediaries. It also includes provisions aimed at combating market abuse.

The MiCA came into force in stages:

• June 29, 2023: MiCA comes into force after its publication in the Official Journal of the EU.

• June 30, 2024: The MiCA framework for asset-referenced tokens and e-money tokens becomes applicable.

• December 30, 2024: The MiCA regime for crypto asset service providers becomes applicable.

• Transition period until July 1, 2026: Providers operating under national schemes before 30 December 2024 may continue to operate for a limited period, depending on Member States’ choices and whether authorization is granted or refused earlier.

This regulatory clarity has enabled European companies to plan timelines, budgets and product roadmaps around defined regulatory milestones.

One of the most important structural effects of MiCA is the introduction of an EU-wide authorization model for crypto asset service providers (CASPs). Businesses can obtain a license in an EU country through its competent authority and then offer services across the EU without needing to renew their license in each market.

MiCA covers several functions, including issuance, conduct, authorization, disclosures and service provider obligations. Europe is also strengthening rules to combat money laundering and terrorist financing in the crypto context. The EU AML package includes the creation of the Anti-Money Laundering Authority (AMLA).

Did you know? MiCA is one of the first comprehensive frameworks to regulate crypto uniformly across all 27 EU member states, meaning that a license obtained in one country allows companies to serve customers across the entire EU without having to reapply in each market.

What “the United States is pausing” means: a work in progress

The pause in the U.S. approach reflects ongoing deliberations over how to define the regulatory scope. Regulators are still considering key questions, including when a token is considered a security, when it is treated as a commodity, and which agency has primary authority over crypto asset activities.

Legislation on market structure still in progress

The Digital Asset Market Clarity Act of 2025 aims to establish a federal regulatory structure for digital assets. It classifies them as either digital products or investment contracts. Transactions involving digital products would fall under the CFTC, while considered investment contracts would fall under the SEC.

If the Clarity Act becomes law, it would require certain digital asset brokers and exchanges to register with the CFTC. It would also establish standards for the safekeeping of client assets, thereby improving transparency and promoting investor protection.

Token classification remains the pressure point

In late 2025, SEC Chairman Paul Atkins said the commission was evaluating a “token taxonomy” based on the Howey Investment Contracts Test. The regulator is exploring a classification model for crypto assets and potential exemptions as part of broader discussions on market structure.

This process is important because token classification is not just an academic exercise; it determines whether platforms must register with the SEC, what disclosures apply, and whether certain products become too risky to offer in the U.S. market.

Regulatory approach to stablecoins becomes clear

The GENIUS Act in the United States establishes a federal framework for payment stablecoins, focused on issuer oversight, reserve support, and consumer protection. It sets standards for who can issue stablecoins, how reserves should be held and disclosed, and how redemption rights should work.

The law also limits misleading claims about government support and clarifies the supervisory roles of bank and non-bank issuers. It aims to make stablecoins more secure for everyday payments while supporting regulated innovation.

Did you know? Paul Atkins has been closely involved in crypto policy debates as co-chair of the Token Alliance. He has advocated for clearer token classifications and regulatory exemptions to support blockchain startups.

How businesses are created, listed and evolve in the United States and Europe

Europe has established clear regulatory guidelines, while the United States is still debating the scope of its crypto regulation. Crypto companies react in predictable ways.

• Licensing strategies diverge: MiCA’s authorization structure encourages companies to choose a European regulatory “home base” and expand outwards. Companies often obtain European licenses first for regulatory certainty reasons and then consider expansion to the United States.

• Listing policies are becoming more conservative in the United States: Uncertainty around the classification of crypto assets is making exchanges and brokers more cautious. When it is unclear whether an asset will be treated as a security or commodity, firms may limit listings or restrict features such as staking. In contrast, MiCA sets out clearer disclosure categories and requirements. Although this increases compliance costs, it reduces the risk of asset classification.

• Stablecoin availability may not converge as users expected: Even though Europe and the United States regulate stablecoins, their compliance frameworks differ. Companies’ creation, listing, and scaling decisions influence which stablecoins to prioritize, how reserves are structured, and how distribution partnerships with banks, fintechs, and exchanges are negotiated.

• Companies want a single regulation: Large institutions such as banks, asset managers and public companies prefer environments with stable and predictable rules. The Single European Regulation may be attractive to crypto companies. Even though the United States offers extensive capital markets, companies still need clarity around asset classification and registration procedures.

Did you know? Crypto licenses often cover not only exchanges, but also custody, brokerage, staking facilitation, and token issuance. This means that companies must design their products based on what their specific license legally allows them to offer.

Side effects of crypto regulations in Europe and the United States

While Europe has established stable crypto regulation under MiCA and the US continues to work on its regulatory scope, the impact goes beyond compliance checklists:

• Liquidity pools can fragment: EU-regulated sites could attract flows of businesses seeking clearer authorization frameworks. U.S. institutions, meanwhile, may remain in-depth, but more selective in what they can offer and how products are structured.

• Compliance costs are reshaping competition: Larger companies can spread the cost of complying with MiCA and AML requirements across their businesses. Smaller businesses may need to merge, find partners, or exit certain markets due to higher compliance costs.

• More regulated access ramps: The Commodity Futures Trading Commission has outlined steps related to listed crypto spot products potentially trading on federally regulated markets.

While these results are not guaranteed, they illustrate how crypto businesses may operate differently in Europe and the United States as regulatory frameworks evolve.