ESMA Expects Crypto Firms to End Services for Non-MiCA Stablecoins

The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), the EU regulator and supervisor, published an opinion on 8 October 2026 setting out supervisory expectations that crypto-asset service providers (CASPs) authorised under the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA) cease providing services related to non-MiCA-compliant stablecoins to clients in the European Union. The opinion applies to asset-referenced tokens (ARTs) and e-money tokens (EMTs), also known as stablecoins, in respect of which the conditions for a lawful offer to the public or admission to trading in the Union under Title III or Title IV of MiCA, including any applicable exemptions or transitional arrangements, are not met.

The expectation covers the full range of crypto-asset services covered by MiCA, whether provided individually or in combination: the operation of trading platforms, exchange services, execution of orders, placing of crypto-assets, reception and transmission of orders, investment advice, transfers, custody and administration, and portfolio management.

The document, reference ESMA75-113276571-1742, is addressed primarily to national competent authorities (NCAs) to promote supervisory convergence and to support their assessment of specific business setups. ESMA’s competence to deliver it is based on Article 29(1)(a) of the ESMA Regulation, Regulation (EC) No 1095/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010, under which the authority provides opinions to NCAs for the purpose of building a common Union supervisory culture and consistent supervisory practices and ensuring uniform procedures and consistent approaches throughout the Union. The opinion describes MiCA’s entry into application as a fundamental development in the establishment of a single rulebook for the regulation and supervision of crypto-assets, and states that effective and harmonised implementation and supervision across the Union are crucial to delivering the framework’s objectives of investor protection, market integrity and financial stability. It is without prejudice to the competences of the EBA and relevant competent authorities in relation to the authorisation and supervision of ART and EMT issuers under Titles III and IV of MiCA, and does not prejudice any future opinions or other convergence tools issued by ESMA.

The opinion complements European Commission Q&A 2404 and ESMA’s earlier public statement on the provision of certain crypto-asset services in relation to non-MiCA-compliant ARTs and EMTs, which established the circumstances in which the provision of certain services may constitute an offer to the public, a seeking of admission to trading or a placing of an ART or EMT. The new opinion does not change that position, nor does it imply that the provision of every crypto-asset service in relation to an ART or EMT necessarily constitutes an offer to the public or admission to trading within the meaning of Articles 16(1) or 48(1) of MiCA. The action is separate from ESMA’s response to the European Commission’s public consultation on the review of MiCA, dated 30 September 2026.

Article 66(1) Reasoning and Identified Harms

ESMA’s central position is that providing a MiCA service in relation to a non-compliant token exposes clients to risks that do not arise from the service itself but are inherent to the token’s non-compliant status, given the absence of the issuer-level safeguards required by Titles III and IV. In ESMA’s view, those risks cannot be adequately identified, managed or mitigated through the measures available to the CASP, and they should give rise to a presumption that the provision of all MiCA services in relation to such tokens is incompatible with Article 66(1), which requires CASPs “to act honestly, fairly and professionally in the best interests of clients and prospective clients,” because the CASP would be considered to knowingly facilitate client exposure to risks created by the absence of those safeguards.

The opinion states that this conclusion does not depend on whether each individual crypto-asset service constitutes, in itself, an offer to the public or admission to trading. It identifies three harms that would follow if authorised CASPs maintained or facilitated the availability of non-compliant tokens in the Union. First, it would jeopardise the effectiveness of Titles II, III and IV of MiCA by enabling systematic circumvention of the regulatory requirements, leaving assets belonging to the same regulatory category subject to different standards depending solely on whether they were issued and made available in the Union in compliance with MiCA. Second, it would create an uneven playing field between compliant and non-compliant issuers and distort competition: MiCA-compliant issuers must comply with extensive obligations, including applicable redemption rights, reserve-of-assets or safeguarding requirements, governance obligations, disclosure requirements and ongoing supervisory oversight, while non-compliant tokens could remain available without bearing equivalent regulatory costs or obligations. Third, it would undermine investor confidence by depriving investors of the consistent level of protection, transparency and supervisory oversight that MiCA is designed to provide, since investors could not reasonably expect a uniform level of protection where assets in the same category face different legal requirements and enforcement standards.

ESMA also states that reliance on warnings, disclosures or client acknowledgements would not sufficiently address these concerns. The opinion reasons that MiCA’s protections do not address a single risk but operate collectively to mitigate a broad range of risks relating to the issuance and operation of ARTs and EMTs, and that expecting clients to assess the implications of the absent safeguards is highly unlikely to enable them to accurately evaluate the risks involved. Any assessment undertaken by a CASP would necessarily involve complex legal, regulatory and operational judgments and could differ in scope, methodology and conclusions, so disclosures are unlikely to constitute an effective substitute for the safeguards themselves. The opinion adds that servicing non-compliant tokens hinders NCAs’ ability to proactively ensure full compliance with MiCA, in particular in enforcing the quality of white-paper information and marketing communications and in monitoring that trading is not detrimental to the interests of crypto-asset holders, in particular retail holders.

Under the opinion’s supervisory expectations, NCAs should consider whether a CASP’s services, individually or in combination, allow EU clients to acquire, trade, exchange, subscribe for, increase their exposure to, or otherwise access or maintain non-MiCA-compliant ARTs or EMTs. CASPs should not maintain, introduce or facilitate access to such tokens for EU clients through their services and should implement appropriate technical, contractual and organisational controls to prevent their availability in the Union, including controls preventing EU clients from acquiring or increasing positions in those tokens.

Wind-Down Services and the Three-Month Deadline

The opinion does not prevent NCAs from allowing CASPs that do not yet comply to provide strictly limited residual services where these are necessary to ensure an orderly wind-down and to avoid client detriment. Such residual services should be limited to the liquidation, conversion, withdrawal, transfer or safekeeping of existing holdings and should not facilitate new acquisitions, promotion, trading, active distribution or continued market availability of the relevant tokens. They should be time-limited, clearly communicated to clients and subject to close supervisory scrutiny.

Where NCAs identify remaining legacy exposures, they should require remediation as soon as possible and no later than three months following the opinion’s publication. Any continuation of services should be strictly limited to “sell-only, conversion, transfer or withdrawal functionalities” necessary to avoid client detriment, and should remain time-limited, risk-based and closely supervised. ESMA states that it will, in cooperation with the respective NCAs, regularly monitor the timely application of the opinion.