Markets in Crypto-Assets, or MiCA, a framework adopted recently by the European Union’s financial watchdog, will undergo a three-part consultation process.
The consultation packages, according to a notice issued on the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) website on June 12, would address MiCA’s authorization, governance, conflicts-of-interest, and complaint-handling procedures beginning in July 2023. The European Commission, European Parliament, and European Council must all approve the measures.
The first consultation package will include technical standards on the application of crypto asset service providers in the European Union(EU), as well as procedures for handling complaints and disclosing potential conflicts of interest. The second, expected to start in October, will consider disclosures of information to investors, governance requirements for cryptocurrency firms, and “sustainability indicators and adverse impacts on climate.”
According to the European Securities Market Authority (ESMA), the final consultation, expected in the first quarter of 2024, may consider investor protection and rules to counter market abuse. The MiCA framework proposed a roughly 18-month timeline to fully take effect, with all rules applying beginning in December 2024.
After first being proposed by the European Commission(EC) in September 2020, the Economic and Financial Affairs Council of the European Union approved MiCA in a May 2023 vote. European Securities Markets Authority(ESMA) said the framework had “entered into force” as of June, but regulators and lawmakers seem to be going through suggestions aimed at ensuring a smooth implementation of the cryptocurrency-focused legislation.
At a time when cryptocurrency industry leaders are considering in which jurisdictions to conduct business, regulatory clarity of digital assets is often at the forefront of discussions. MiCA aims to create a consistent regulatory framework for crypto among European Union(EU) member states, while United States(US) officials have been criticized for taking a “regulation by enforcement” approach.