SOLANA·HUB
DE
Regulation

ESMA: Authorised providers should stop services in non-compliant stablecoins

ESMA expects MiCA-authorised providers to stop services in non-compliant stablecoins for EU clients. Legacy holdings should be wound down within three months of 8 October 2026. The opinion names no token.

SOLANA·HUB Editorial
Source: ESMA

Supervisory expectations for non-compliant stablecoins

The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) published opinion ESMA75-113276571-1742 on 8 October 2026. It sets out supervisory expectations for crypto-asset services involving asset-referenced tokens (ARTs) and e-money tokens (EMTs) that do not meet the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA, Regulation (EU) 2023/1114). The press release calls them “unauthorised stablecoins”. The opinion itself says “non-MiCA-compliant” ARTs and EMTs.

Crypto-asset service providers authorised under MiCA should stop providing services in those tokens to clients in the European Union. Paragraph 9 says the opinion is addressed primarily to national competent authorities, to support a common supervisory practice. The legal basis ESMA cites is Article 29(1)(a) of the ESMA Regulation (Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010). The opinion is not an amendment to MiCA.

Note: This is reporting, not legal advice and not investment advice.

Who the Expectation Addresses

The addressees are national competent authorities. The expectation applies to providers authorised under MiCA. Article 3(1)(15) defines a crypto-asset service provider as a legal person or other undertaking whose occupation or business is the provision of one or more crypto-asset services to clients on a professional basis, and that is allowed to provide those services under Article 59. The press release says “CASPs authorised under MiCA”.

The clients in view are clients in the Union. Paragraph 22 says CASPs should not maintain, introduce or facilitate access to non-compliant ARTs or EMTs for EU clients. They should put technical, contractual and organisational controls in place to prevent those tokens being available in the Union, including controls that stop EU clients from acquiring or increasing positions.

In Germany, BaFin receives applications for authorisation as a crypto-asset service provider under MiCA. In Austria, section 1(1) of the MiCA Enforcement Act designates the Financial Market Authority (FMA) as the competent authority under Article 93 of MiCA. The opinion itself contains no BaFin order and no FMA order.

What Counts as Non-Compliant

The opinion’s footnote defines the term. Non-compliant ARTs or EMTs are those for which the conditions for a lawful offer to the public, or admission to trading, in the EU under Title III or Title IV are not met, including any applicable exemptions or transitional arrangements.

Article 3 defines the two categories. An ART (point 6) is a crypto-asset that is not an e-money token and that purports to maintain a stable value by referencing another value or right, or a combination of them, including one or more official currencies. An EMT (point 7) is a crypto-asset that purports to maintain a stable value by referencing the value of one official currency.

Article 16 governs offers to the public and admission to trading of ARTs. Article 48 does the same for EMTs: the person must be authorised as a credit institution or an electronic money institution, and must have notified and published a crypto-asset white paper. In Q&A 2404, dated 17 January 2025, the European Commission said that since 30 June 2024 an offer or an admission to trading requires an issuer authorised in the EU, subject to the transitional provisions for ARTs in Article 143(4) and (5).

The 8 October opinion names no token, no network and no exchange.

Which Services Are Covered

The press release lists the full range of MiCA services, individually or in combination: operation of a trading platform, exchange services, execution of orders, placing, reception and transmission of orders, investment advice, transfers, custody and administration, and portfolio management. Paragraph 21 uses the same list. It matches the ten services in Article 3(1)(16), including both exchange of crypto-assets for funds and exchange for other crypto-assets.

The hook in the regulation is Article 66(1): crypto-asset service providers shall act honestly, fairly and professionally in the best interests of their clients and prospective clients. In paragraph 13, ESMA writes that the risk does not come from the service itself but from the absence of the issuer-level safeguards in Titles III and IV. In ESMA’s view those risks cannot be adequately identified, managed or mitigated with the measures available to the provider. ESMA treats that as a presumption that all MiCA services are incompatible with Article 66(1), because the provider would knowingly facilitate client exposure to that risk.

Paragraph 19 adds that warnings, extra disclosures or a client acknowledgement would not, in ESMA’s view, be enough. The MiCA safeguards work together. Disclosure does not replace them.

Paragraphs 7 and 14 draw the boundary. The opinion does not change Q&A 2404. It does not say that every individual service is itself an offer to the public or an admission to trading under Article 16(1) or Article 48(1). Under paragraph 14, the expectation that services should stop does not depend on that classification.

How This Sits Next to the January 2025 Text

On 17 January 2025 ESMA had already published a public statement on certain services in non-compliant ARTs and EMTs, alongside Q&A 2404. Trading platforms were expected to stop making those tokens available for trading. Exchange, execution, and reception and transmission of orders were expected to stop where they constitute an offer to the public. Restrictions on new acquisitions were expected by the end of January 2025. A sell-only window could run until the end of the first quarter of 2025. On custody, the statement said that mere custody and transfer should remain possible.

The 8 October opinion says in paragraph 4 that it complements that guidance. Paragraph 7 says Q&A 2404 is unchanged. Read against each other, the 2025 statement left mere custody and transfer open. The 2026 opinion places both on the list of services that should stop for EU clients. The exception is a time-limited wind-down of existing holdings.

The Deadline and What May Continue

Paragraph 27: where authorities identify remaining legacy exposures, they should require remediation as soon as possible and no later than three months after the date of publication. The press release says the same (“no later than three months after the publication of the opinion”).

The publication date is 8 October 2026. Three months later is 8 January 2027. The opinion does not print that calendar date.

Paragraphs 23 and 24 allow authorities to let providers who do not yet meet the expectation offer strictly limited residual services, where those services are necessary for an orderly wind-down and to avoid client detriment. Residual services are limited to liquidation, conversion, withdrawal, transfer or safekeeping of existing holdings. They should not facilitate new acquisitions, promotion, trading, active distribution or continued market availability. They should be time-limited, clearly communicated to clients and closely supervised. The press release uses the same five activities and adds that any continuation should be time-limited, risk-based and closely supervised.

Paragraph 27 shortens the residual list to sell-only, conversion, transfer or withdrawal. Safekeeping is not in that concluding sentence. It is in paragraph 24 and in the press release.

What This Means for Stablecoins on Solana

The opinion names no Solana token. It does not decide whether Title III or Title IV is met. For three tokens that circulate on Solana, issuer documents describe the token as an e-money token. That is the issuer’s account, not a confirmation by ESMA and not a closed list.

  • USDC. The white paper of Circle Internet Financial Europe SAS classifies USDC as an e-money token under Article 3(1)(7). From 1 July 2024 that company is a second issuer alongside Circle LLC. The white paper says the tokens are fully fungible. Reserves for EEA holders sit with Circle SAS. Reserves for holders outside the EEA sit with Circle LLC. The white paper lists Solana among the networks where USDC is deployed as an SPL token. It carries the Article 51(3) statement that no competent authority has approved the white paper. Circle SAS describes itself there as an electronic money institution supervised by France’s ACPR.
  • EURC. The same company’s EURC white paper also classifies EURC as an e-money token under Article 3(1)(7). From 1 July 2024, the white paper says, Circle SAS is the sole issuer. It names five blockchains, Solana among them. The same statement appears: no authority has approved the white paper.
  • CHFAU. On 5 August 2026 AllUnity said its franc token CHFAU was available on Solana and described it as a MiCAR-compliant e-money token. AllUnity describes itself as a licensed e-money institution. The legal notice points to a white paper under Article 51 and says the announcement was not reviewed or approved by any competent authority. It is addressed to business customers. Earlier coverage: CHFAU on Solana.

Other tokens may meet the conditions or miss them. A token falls under the expectation only if it is an ART or an EMT and the Title III or Title IV conditions, including exemptions and transitional rules, are not met. The overview Stablecoins on Solana discusses further tokens. The classification in this article follows the issuer documents named here and ESMA’s definition.

The opinion sets no rule for self-custodial wallets. It also does not say that a protocol without authorisation is outside the regulation for that reason alone. A person who provides crypto-asset services in the Union on a professional basis needs authorisation under Article 59. That requirement is in the regulation.

Germany, Austria, Switzerland

Article 2(1) of MiCA applies to persons engaged, in the Union, in the issuance, offer to the public and admission to trading of crypto-assets, or in services related to crypto-assets. Germany and Austria are Member States. For crypto-asset service providers, the competent authorities cited above are BaFin and the FMA.

Section 1(2) of the Austrian enforcement act requires the FMA to apply guidelines, recommendations and other measures adopted by the EBA or ESMA within the scope of MiCA. The FMA may deviate where there is a justified reason, in particular a conflict with federal statute. The section does not say whether the FMA will treat this opinion as such a measure.

Switzerland is not a Member State. Article 2 ties the regulation to activity in the Union. The opinion is not addressed to FINMA. For stablecoin projects under Swiss supervision, FINMA published Guidance 06/2024 on 26 July 2024, on bank default guarantees and on money-laundering and sanctions risks. That is Swiss supervisory practice, not an implementation of this ESMA opinion.

Limits of the opinion

  • It is not a new law, and it does not amend Article 16 or Article 48.
  • It names no token and no Solana stablecoin.
  • It does not say that every service is itself an offer to the public. Paragraph 7 says so expressly.
  • It does not withdraw the Commission’s Q&A 2404.
  • It does not order holders to sell. The expectation is aimed at supervisors and at authorised providers.
  • It does not regulate self-custody, and it neither expressly includes nor expressly excludes protocols that are not authorised.
  • It does not apply in Switzerland.
  • It does not print the date 8 January 2027. That is the calendar day three months after 8 October 2026.
  • It leaves the EBA’s competence over authorisation and supervision of issuers untouched. That is paragraph 10.
  • Warnings do not replace issuer obligations, in ESMA’s view. That is paragraph 19.

What to Watch

  • Whether BaFin and the FMA say how they will apply the opinion
  • Which tokens authorities treat as non-compliant in individual cases
  • How authorised providers describe the wind-down of existing holdings to clients
  • Whether supervisory practice aligns paragraph 27’s shorter residual list with paragraph 24’s list, which includes safekeeping

Sources

#esma #mica #stablecoins #regulierung #dach

Related Articles