What Happens as Europe Enforces MiCA and the US Delays Crypto Rules

Key takeaways

• Europe has moved from drafting to enforcing crypto rules under MiCA, giving companies clear timelines, licensing paths and compliance milestones across all EU member states.

• The US still relies on a multi-agency, enforcement-led framework, with major questions about token classification and market structure waiting on new federal legislation.

• MiCA’s single-license model allows crypto firms to operate across the EU after approval in one country, encouraging companies to base early expansion strategies in Europe.

• Unclear asset classification in the US makes exchanges more cautious about listings and staking, while MiCA’s categories reduce legal uncertainty despite higher compliance costs.

At the global level, two major economic blocs, the US and Europe, are taking very different approaches to crypto regulation.

On one side, the European Union has moved from drafting rules to active enforcement. The Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA) has entered into force in phases. It already covers crypto asset service providers and market abuse, while the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) aims to integrate its interim MiCA register into formal regulatory systems.

On the other side, the regulatory framework in the US shows some progress but still lacks a single, full-fledged framework. The regulatory environment remains unclear and has been shaped largely by enforcement actions from multiple agencies.

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) and the 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 how crypto rules have progressed in Europe and the US, how companies build, list and scale across both economic blocs, and the secondary effects of evolving crypto regulation in these regions.

What “Europe moves ahead” means: The MiCA framework

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

MiCA came into force in stages:

• June 29, 2023: MiCA enters into force following publication in the EU Official Journal.

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

• Dec. 30, 2024: MiCA’s regime for crypto asset service providers becomes applicable.

• Transition window up to July 1, 2026: Providers operating under national regimes before Dec. 30, 2024, may continue operating for a limited period, depending on member-state choices and whether authorization is granted or refused earlier.

This regulatory clarity has allowed firms in Europe to plan timelines, budgets and product roadmaps around defined regulatory milestones.

One of MiCA’s biggest structural effects is the introduction of an EU-wide authorization model for crypto asset service providers (CASPs). Firms can obtain a license in one EU country through its competent authority and then offer services across the EU without needing to relicense in each market.

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

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

What “the US pauses” means: A work in progress

A pause in the US approach reflects ongoing deliberation over how to define the regulatory perimeter. Regulators are still weighing key questions, including when a token qualifies as a security, when it is treated as a commodity and which agency has primary authority over crypto asset activities.

Market-structure legislation is still in motion

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

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

Token classification remains the pressure point

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

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

The regulatory approach regarding stablecoins becomes clear

The GENIUS Act in the US establishes a federal framework for payment stablecoins, focusing on issuer oversight, reserve backing and consumer protections. It sets standards for who can issue stablecoins, how reserves must be held and disclosed, and how redemption rights should operate.

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

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

How companies build, list and scale in the US and Europe

Europe has established clear regulatory guidelines, while the US is still debating the perimeter of its crypto regulation. Crypto firms are responding in predictable ways.

• Licensing strategies diverge: MiCA’s authorization structure encourages firms to choose an EU regulatory “home base” and scale outward. Companies often secure EU licenses first for regulatory certainty and consider US expansion later.

• Listing policies grow more conservative in the US: Uncertainty around crypto asset classification makes exchanges and brokers more cautious. When it is unclear whether an asset will be treated as a security or a commodity, firms may limit listings or restrict features such as staking. On the contrary, MiCA lays out clearer categories and disclosure requirements. While this increases compliance costs, it reduces asset classification risk.

• Stablecoin availability may not converge as users expect: While both Europe and the US regulate stablecoins, their compliance frameworks differ. Firms’ decisions on building, listing and scaling influence which stablecoins are prioritized, how reserves are structured and how distribution partnerships with banks, fintechs and exchanges are negotiated.

• Companies want a single rulebook: Large institutions such as banks, asset managers and public companies prefer environments with stable and predictable rules. Europe’s single rulebook can be attractive for crypto firms. While the US offers deep capital markets, companies still need clarity around asset classification and registration pathways.

Did you know? Crypto licensing often covers not just exchanges, but also custody, brokerage, staking facilitation and token issuance. This means companies must design products around what their specific authorization legally permits them to offer.

Secondary effects of crypto regulations in Europe and the US

As Europe has put stable crypto regulation in place under MiCA and the US continues working on its regulatory perimeter, the impact goes beyond compliance checklists:

• Liquidity pools can fragment: EU-regulated venues may attract flows from firms seeking clearer authorization frameworks. US venues, meanwhile, may remain deep but more selective in what they can list and how products are structured.

• Compliance costs reshape competition: Large firms can spread the cost of meeting MiCA and AML requirements across their businesses. Smaller companies may need to merge, find partners or exit certain markets due to higher compliance costs.

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

While these outcomes are not guaranteed, they illustrate how crypto enterprises may operate differently across Europe and the US as regulatory frameworks evolve.