European authorities are also debating how to treat multi-issue stablecoins, such as Circle Internet’s USDC (CRCL), which can be minted by multiple distinct legal entities in different jurisdictions, but presented to users as a single, fungible token.
When MiCA was designed, the European Commission’s intention was definitely to support multi-issuance models, according to Catarina Veloso, head of regulation and compliance at Notabene, a protocol designed to bring crypto transactions into the everyday economy. But during the implementation stage, different stakeholders within the EU, including the ECB, opposed it because they have their own views on the resulting risks.
The real value of stablecoins is that they are natively global, Veloso said. Imposing geographic limits would create a scenario where Circle Europe, now licensed as MiCA, would need to build its own fragmented version of USDC for European markets, he said.
“One of the main added values of the stablecoin is that it is not a payment system created within a specific jurisdiction,” Veloso said in an interview. “So that value is diluted by the fact that it is now being captured by regulatory frameworks that exist within the borders.”
taking control
Unrelated to stablecoins, another key area of discussion is the possibility of more centralized control of MiCA, under the auspices of the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA).
