# Issuing ARTs and EMTs under MiCA: the Token Issuer Regime

> Titles III and IV of MiCA from the issuer's side: the ART/EMT classification test, Article 21 authorisation versus the Article 48 EMI requirement, own funds and the 30% deposit floor, redemption at par and the interest ban, significant tokens, the Article 23 and 58(3) caps, recovery and redemption plans, and what the ESMA registers show in August 2026.

Author: Ksenia Voronova — Lawyer, Family Office (https://wiki.private.law/en/authors/voronova)
Last modified: 2026-08-20T20:53:00.000Z
Canonical: https://wiki.private.law/en/mica-art-emt-issuance
Topics: banking
Jurisdictions: eu
Product tags: stablecoin, license-vasp-mica, crypto, compliance, neobank
Semantic tags: stablecoin, license-vasp-mica, crypto, compliance, neobank

---

Regulation \(EU\) 2023/1114 is normally read from the platform's side: licence, passport, custody. Titles III and IV describe something else entirely — the regime that applies to whoever creates the token. Two authorisation machines that do not mirror each other, two prudential regimes, two different holder rights, and a classification test that decides which of them applies before a single application is filed.

The asymmetry of the outcome is visible in the primary record. As of 18 August 2026 the "Issuers of ART" file in ESMA's interim MiCA register consists of a single header row: not one authorised issuer of an asset-referenced token exists in the EU. The "Issuers of EMT" file carries 43 notified white papers from 23 issuers across 13 EEA states. The European Commission states the position without hedging — Question 12 of its [MiCA review consultation](https://finance.ec.europa.eu/document/download/62be7015-f066-4fac-b74e-71bacdbcc9f5_en?filename=2026-mica-review-targeted-consultation-document_en.pdf) opens with "After being in effect for close to two years, no ARTs have been licensed in the EU under MiCA."

The regulation as a framework is covered in the [MiCA overview](https://wiki.private.law/en/mica-eu), the service-provider route in the [CASP licence guide](https://wiki.private.law/en/casp-license-guide), and stablecoins as a market phenomenon in the [types and regulation piece](https://wiki.private.law/en/stablecoins). None of the three covers the issuer regime itself, which is built from six joints: the classification test, the requirements on who the issuer may be, capital and reserves, the redemption right, recovery and redemption plans, and the caps on circulation.

## Three buckets: the test that decides everything downstream

Classification rests on two definitions in Article 3\(1\) of the [Regulation](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32023R1114). An e-money token is a crypto-asset that "purports to maintain a stable value by referencing the value of one official currency". An asset-referenced token is a crypto-asset that is **not** an EMT and that maintains a stable value by referencing another value or right or a combination thereof, "including one or more official currencies".

So the test turns on the reference, not on the backing, and the order is fixed: EMT is tested first and ART is the residual category. Exactly one official currency in the reference produces an EMT. A basket of two currencies, a currency plus a commodity, gold, an index, a set of crypto-assets — all produce an ART. Neither produces an "other crypto-asset" under the light-touch Title II, where the only obligation is a white paper.

That is why almost every dollar stablecoin circulating in the EU sits in the EMT box rather than the ART box: USDC, USDT, USDG and PYUSD each reference exactly one dollar. Backing is irrelevant to classification — a token promising one dollar but collateralised in bitcoin remains an EMT by definition, and simultaneously cannot lawfully be issued, because Article 49\(3\) requires EMTs to be issued "at par value and on the receipt of funds", with those funds going into safeguarding under Directive 2009/110/EC. The construct is defined by the Regulation and unbuildable within it — a seam between definition and regime that MiCA never closes.

A second consequence of the definitions is rarely noticed. Article 48\(2\) states that an EMT referencing an official currency of a Member State "shall be deemed to be offered to the public in the Union". A euro-referencing token counts as offered to the EU public regardless of where it was actually marketed.

## Who may issue: two doors and three side gates

For EMTs, Article 48\(1\) settles the question in a paragraph: only the issuer itself may offer the token to the public or seek admission to trading, and only if it is authorised as a credit institution or as an electronic money institution and has notified a white paper. The practical consequence is harder than it reads. The path to issuing a euro or dollar token in the EU starts not with MiCA but with an EMI authorisation under Directive 2009/110/EC — EUR 350,000 initial capital \(Article 4\), own funds under Method D of no less than 2% of average outstanding electronic money \(Article 5\(3\)\), safeguarding, governance, ICT resilience. MiCA is bolted on top of a licence already held, not offered instead of one. The well-worn doors are [Lithuania](https://wiki.private.law/en/emi-license-lithuania) and [Luxembourg](https://wiki.private.law/en/emi-license-luxembourg).

For ARTs, Article 16\(1\) offers two options: authorisation under Article 21 from the home Member State regulator — a licence that did not exist in EU law before MiCA — or a credit institution under Article 17, which needs only a notification 90 working days ahead and an approved white paper. A bank is carved out of Articles 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 35, 41 and 42 \(Article 17\(4\)\): it takes no authorisation, is not subject to the Article 35 own-funds requirement, and cannot lose an "issuer authorisation" it never held.

Three side gates that secondary commentary consistently omits:

- **ART below the threshold.** Article 16\(2\)\(a\): where the average outstanding value, computed at the end of each calendar day over 12 months, has never exceeded EUR 5,000,000 and the issuer is not linked to a network of other exempt issuers, no authorisation is required. The same under \(b\) where the offer is addressed solely to qualified investors and only they may hold the token. A white paper is still drawn up and notified in both cases.
- **EMT under the national waiver.** Article 48\(4\) disapplies paragraph 1 for issuers exempted under Article 9\(1\) of Directive 2009/110/EC — the optional national regime for small e-money issuers up to EUR 5,000,000 of average outstanding electronic money. No passport comes with it: Article 9\(3\) switches off Article 25 of Directive 2007/64/EC, and breaching the ceiling triggers a 30-calendar-day window to apply for full authorisation.
- **EMT inside a limited network.** Article 48\(5\) removes the whole of Title IV, except Articles 48\(7\) and 51, for tokens exempt under Article 1\(4\) and \(5\) of EMD2 — the limited-network and electronic-communications carve-outs.
These gates are not theoretical. ESMA's interim register carries dedicated fields `ae_exemption48_4` and `ae_exemption48_5`, and the Czech Payment Corporation SE \(trading as Stable Labs\), with three notified white papers, appears there with an explicit supervisory comment: the EMT is issued "under the limited network exception", is not offered to the general public, and circulates inside a functionally limited ecosystem.

## Procedure and timing: two machines that do not match

| **Parameter** | **ART \(Title III\)** | **EMT \(Title IV\)** |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Eligible issuers | Legal person authorised under Article 21, or a credit institution under Article 17 | Credit institution or EMI only \(Article 48\(1\)\) |
| White paper approval | Deemed approved on grant of authorisation \(Article 21\(1\)\); separate approval for banks \(Article 17\(1\)\(a\)\) | None: "Competent authorities shall not require prior approval" \(Article 51\(11\)\) |
| Time to launch | 25 working days for completeness, 60 for assessment, 20 for opinions, 25 for the decision, 5 to notify — roughly 130 working days, plus up to 20 days of suspension | Notice of intention 40 working days ahead \(Article 48\(6\)\); white paper notified 20 working days before publication \(Article 51\(11\)\) |
| Role of the ECB | Opinion under Article 20\(5\); a negative opinion on monetary sovereignty grounds obliges refusal \(Article 21\(4\)\) and obliges withdrawal of an existing authorisation \(Article 24\(2\)\) | No direct veto; for tokens in a non-Member-State currency Article 24\(3\) applies via Article 58\(3\) — volume cap or minimum denomination |
| White paper liability | Article 26: issuer and members of its management bodies liable to holders | Article 52: identically worded |

The ECB's role is not ceremonial. Article 20\(5\) describes the EBA, ESMA and ECB opinions as non-binding, but does so "without prejudice to Article 21\(4\)" — and Article 21\(4\) obliges the competent authority to refuse authorisation where the ECB gives a negative opinion on grounds of payment systems, monetary policy transmission or monetary sovereignty. Article 17\(5\) does the same for banks. A formally non-binding opinion operates as a veto: a drafting contradiction that most commentary flattens into "the ECB is consulted".

## The white paper: content, notification, liability

Content is set by Article 19 and Annex II for ARTs, Article 51 and Annex III for EMTs: issuer, token, offer, rights and obligations, technology, risks, and the climate indicators of the consensus mechanism. A machine-readable format is mandatory, as are a management-body statement on completeness and clarity, a table of contents, the notification date, and drafting in a home-state official language or a language customary in international finance.

Three mandatory warnings in the EMT document deserve separate attention. On the first page: that the white paper has not been approved by any competent authority in the EU and that the issuer is solely responsible for its content \(Article 51\(3\)\). Next: that the token is covered neither by the investor compensation schemes under Directive 97/9/EC nor by the deposit guarantee schemes under Directive 2014/49/EU \(Article 51\(4\)\). In the summary: that holders have a right of redemption at any time and at par value, with the conditions for it \(Article 51\(6\)\). Marketing communications must repeat the same redemption statement \(Article 53\(2\)\) and cannot be disseminated before the white paper is published.

Liability is constructed identically for both categories \(Articles 26 and 52\): for information that is incomplete, unclear or misleading, the issuer **and the members of its administrative, management or supervisory body** are liable to the holder, and any contractual exclusion or limitation of that liability is deprived of legal effect. The burden of proof sits with the holder — who must establish both the infringement and that reliance on the information affected the decision to buy, sell or exchange. The summary is carved out: no liability for it unless it misleads when read together with the rest of the document.

## Own funds and the reserve

Article 35\(1\) for an ART issuer: own funds at no less than the highest of EUR 350,000, 2% of the average amount of the reserve of assets, or a quarter of the preceding year's fixed overheads. The average is computed at the end of each calendar day over the preceding six months; where several tokens are issued, the amounts are summed. What gets lost in summaries comes next. Article 35\(3\) allows the competent authority to add up to 20% where risk assessment warrants it, and Article 35\(5\) does not merely allow but **requires**: on the outcome of regular stress testing the authority "shall require" between 20% and 40% more. For significant ARTs the base percentage rises from 2% to 3% \(Article 45\(5\)\). EUR 350,000 is the floor of a range, not the substance of the requirement.

The reserve under Article 36 is legally and operationally segregated from the issuer's estate so that creditors have no recourse to it in insolvency; each token gets its own pool; aggregate market value must at least equal aggregate holder claims; valuation is mark-to-market, falling back to conservative mark-to-model, with the amortised cost method expressly prohibited. Custody under Article 37: assets must be placed in custody no later than five working days after issuance, with a CASP, credit institution or investment firm, which must be a separate legal person; custodian concentration must be avoided; and a custodian that loses an instrument or crypto-asset must compensate or make restitution unless it proves an external event beyond its reasonable control. Investment under Article 38 is confined to highly liquid financial instruments with minimal market, credit and concentration risk — and every gain and every loss on that investment is borne by the issuer.

The ART reporting rhythm has four beats and is frequently misdescribed: daily matching of issuance and reserve \(Article 36\(6\) and \(7\)\); monthly public disclosure of the amount in circulation and the value and composition of the reserve \(Article 30\(1\)\); an independent reserve audit every six months, notified to the regulator within six weeks and published within two \(Article 36\(9\)–\(10\)\); quarterly reporting to the regulator where issue value exceeds EUR 100,000,000 \(Article 22\(1\)\). Nowhere does MiCA require a monthly attestation in the American sense.

For EMTs the picture is structurally different, and this is the most underrated gap in the whole regime. One direct requirement applies — Article 54: at least 30% of funds received is always deposited in separate accounts at credit institutions, and the remainder is invested in secure, low-risk assets qualifying under Article 38\(1\), denominated in the same official currency. The chapters on the reserve of assets, custody, investment and monthly disclosure — Articles 30, 36, 37 and 38 — apply to an EMT issuer only where the token has been classified as significant \(Article 58\(1\)\); Article 58\(2\) separately lets the regulator impose them on a non-significant token case by case, which proves the default. And where a bank issues the EMT, even Article 54 falls away, since it is tied to safeguarding under Article 7\(1\) of EMD2, which does not apply to credit institutions. The Commission concedes the gap verbatim in Question 16 of its consultation: "Under MiCA, credit institutions issuing EMTs are not subject to the reserve asset segregation requirements or the requirement to maintain a reserve of assets applicable to non-bank EMT issuers." That same bank token must nonetheless warn in its white paper that it is not covered by any deposit guarantee scheme.

> ⚠️ The rules defining what an ART reserve may actually hold were still unadopted in August 2026. On 28 August 2025 the Commission proposed to loosen two RTS — on reserve liquidity \(Article 36\(4\)\) and on highly liquid financial instruments \(Article 38\(5\)\) — by permitting investment in commodities and crypto-assets, treating all money market funds as highly liquid, and relaxing concentration limits. By Opinions of 9 October 2025 the EBA rejected the substantive amendments as incompatible with Articles 36\(1\)\(b\) and 38\(1\). Both standards remain at "final text published, adoption pending". The EBA calibration everyone cites as if it were in force: 20% daily and 30% weekly liquidity for non-significant ARTs, 40% and 60% for significant ones, deposits of no less than 30% and 60% of the amount referenced in each official currency, and a per-bank cap of 25 / 15 / 5% of the reserve's market value depending on systemic status, capped further at 1.5% of that bank's own total assets. What is in force: Delegated Regulations \(EU\) 2025/415 on own-funds adjustment and stress testing, \(EU\) 2025/1264 on the liquidity management policy, and \(EU\) 2025/298 on the transaction estimation methodology.

## Redemption at par and the interest ban

The redemption right is not the same across the two categories, although secondary texts collapse them into one formula. An EMT holder redeems under Article 49\(4\) "at any time and at par value", in funds other than electronic money. An ART holder redeems under Article 39\(2\) **at the market value of the referenced assets**, or by delivery of those assets; par appears only where the issuer accepted payment in funds denominated in an official currency, in which case it must always offer redemption in funds in that same currency. An ART without a currency leg is not a token with a face value — it is a claim on a basket.

Redemption fees are prohibited in both Titles \(Articles 39\(3\) and 49\(6\)\), but both provisions open the same way: "Without prejudice to Article 46." And Article 46\(1\) sets out what every issuer's recovery plan must contain — with liquidity fees on redemptions, limits on the amount redeemable on any working day, and suspension of redemptions listed among the recovery options. Article 46\(4\) adds the regulator's own power to suspend redemption temporarily. "Always, at par, free of charge" is accurate for normal conditions and inaccurate for stressed ones, and every issuer must file the plan for moving into stressed conditions in advance.

The interest ban \(Articles 40 and 50\) is drafted broadly and addresses service providers as well as issuers: interest includes any remuneration or benefit related to the length of time a holder holds the token, including net compensation or discounts with an equivalent effect received **from third parties** or through the pricing of other products. It catches not only a coupon but the workarounds — exchange rebates on balances, tiered pricing keyed to holding period.

Hence the economics. Under the US model in the [GENIUS Act](https://wiki.private.law/en/genius-act), reserves sit in cash, deposits, Treasury bills of 93 days or less, repo and money market funds \(Sec. 4\(a\)\(1\)\); paying interest to holders is banned there too \(Sec. 4\(a\)\(11\)\) — but the whole carry stays with the issuer, and redemption fees are permitted if disclosed. Under the EU model at least 30% sits on bank deposit at whatever the bank pays, the remainder is confined to highly liquid instruments in the same currency, there is no redemption fee at all, and own funds and plans sit on top. The scale gap follows: on [Isabel Schnabel's figures](https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/key/date/2026/html/ecb.sp260601~38dffe5ec5.en.html) \(ECB, 1 June 2026\), global stablecoin capitalisation is close to USD 300 billion while all euro-denominated stablecoins together stand at roughly EUR 500 million — about 0.2% of the market. How deposit tokens, stablecoins, EMTs and tokenised funds relate to one another legally is set out in [the four legal forms of the digital dollar](https://wiki.private.law/en/digital-dollar-forms).

## Significant tokens: when supervision moves to the EBA

The significance criteria are common to ARTs and EMTs and listed in Article 43\(1\): more than 10 million holders; issue value, market capitalisation or reserve size above EUR 5,000,000,000; more than 2.5 million transactions and EUR 500,000,000 of average daily value simultaneously; the issuer being a gatekeeper under Regulation \(EU\) 2022/1925; significance of activities on an international scale, including use for payments and remittances; interconnectedness with the financial system; and the same issuer having at least one further token plus at least one crypto-asset service. Three of the seven suffice. The EBA decides: draft decision, 20 working days for observations, final decision within 60 working days, transfer of supervision within 20 working days. An issuer may also request the status voluntarily \(Articles 44 and 57\), in which case supervision moves to the EBA at the moment of authorisation.

Consequences of classification: the own-funds percentage rises to 3% \(Article 45\(5\)\); the minimum deposits in each referenced currency rise to 60% \(Article 45\(7\)\(b\)\); a liquidity management policy and regular liquidity stress testing are added, along with a remuneration policy and an obligation to ensure the token can be held in custody by different CASPs on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms; and the six-monthly independent reserve audit restarts from the date of the significance decision \(Article 58\(1\)\).

There is a carve-out almost nobody writes about. Under Articles 56\(7\) and 57\(5\), supervision of a significant EMT denominated in an official currency of a Member State other than the euro is **not** transferred to the EBA where at least 80% of holders and of transaction volume are concentrated in the home Member State. A Danish, Polish or Swedish token that circulates at home stays with its national regulator even after being classified as significant.

Status as at 20 August 2026: the EBA has published no decision classifying any ART or EMT as significant, and no significant token appears in ESMA's register. The reason is arithmetic — the thresholds are calibrated for a market the EU does not have. With euro tokens totalling around EUR 500 million, a EUR 5 billion or 10-million-holder bar is out of reach.

## The cap on use as a means of exchange

Article 23 is usually summarised as "the cap on non-euro stablecoins". Article 58\(3\) is both more precise and narrower: Articles 22, 23 and 24\(3\) apply to EMTs "denominated in a currency that is not an official currency of a Member State". The Swedish krona, zloty, leu, forint, Czech koruna, Danish krone and lev are official currencies of Member States, so tokens on them fall outside the cap entirely. The register already contains such tokens: SEKAU from Germany's AllUnity, PLNQ and RONQ from the Netherlands' Quantoz Payments. Inside the cap sit the dollar, franc, yen and pound — everything outside the Union's currency perimeter.

The thresholds in Article 23\(1\) are themselves cumulative and narrow. Issuance must stop when the estimated quarterly average per day exceeds **both** 1 million transactions **and** EUR 200,000,000, and only transactions associated with use of the token as a means of exchange **within a single currency area** are counted. The third subparagraph of Article 22\(1\) strips out exchanges with the issuer or with a crypto-asset service provider unless there is evidence the token settles transactions in other crypto-assets. Trading flow does not count; payment flow does.

Breaching the threshold creates two duties: stop issuing, and within 40 working days submit a plan to the regulator to bring the numbers back below it. The plan is submitted for approval and the regulator may require modifications — the Regulation names imposing a minimum denomination amount as the example. Issuance may resume only on evidence of a sustained decrease. Separately, Article 24\(3\) via Article 58\(3\) obliges the regulator, on an ECB opinion, to limit the amount issued or impose a minimum denomination; note that Article 24\(2\), the mandatory withdrawal on an ECB opinion, is not extended to EMTs. The estimation methodology sits in Delegated Regulation \(EU\) 2025/298 and the reporting forms in Implementing Regulation \(EU\) 2024/2902; quarterly reporting itself is triggered above EUR 100,000,000 of issue value.

## Recovery plan and redemption plan

Both plans are mandatory for ARTs and EMTs alike, and both are filed within six months. The recovery plan under Article 46 describes how the issuer will restore compliance with the reserve requirements, preserve its services and recover operations, and must contain a wide range of options — liquidity fees, daily redemption limits, suspension. The redemption plan under Article 47 describes the opposite case: how, where the issuer is unable or likely to be unable to meet its obligations, or in insolvency, resolution or withdrawal of authorisation, the outstanding token will be redeemed in an orderly way without undue economic harm to holders or to the market in the reserve assets — with a temporary administrator appointed, equitable treatment of all holders, and continuity of critical activities.

The procedural cadence is the same for both: notification to the regulator, 40 working days for it to require amendments, 40 working days for the issuer to implement them, and regular review thereafter. For ARTs the six months run from authorisation under Article 21 or approval of the white paper under Article 17; for EMTs, from the date of the offer to the public or admission to trading \(Article 55\). Formats come from EBA guidelines: EBA/GL/2024/07 on recovery plans has applied since 13 November 2024, EBA/GL/2024/13 on redemption plans since 10 February 2025.

The link to licence withdrawal runs both ways and is hard-edged. Being made subject to a redemption plan is itself a ground for withdrawing an ART issuer's authorisation \(Article 24\(1\)\(e\)\), and where authorisation is withdrawn on any other ground the issuer must implement the Article 47 procedure \(Article 24\(5\)\). What that looks like for client money in practice is covered in [licence withdrawal and wind-down](https://wiki.private.law/en/license-wind-down).

## What the registers show as at 18 August 2026

ESMA's interim register is five CSV files updated weekly; the latest update at the time of checking was 18 August 2026. On the issuer side:

- **ARTs: zero.** The file contains headers only. In more than two years of application, Title III has produced no authorisations.
- **EMTs: 43 white papers, 23 issuers, 13 EEA states.** By state: France 6 issuers, Luxembourg 3, the Netherlands 3, Finland 2, Lithuania 2, Malta 2, and one each in Czechia, Germany, Denmark, Iceland, Latvia, Poland and Slovenia.
- **Three of the issuers are banks:** Oddo BHF, CACEIS Bank and Banking Circle. The other twenty are EMIs. The thesis that banks would take over EU stablecoin issuance is not yet borne out by the register.
- **The currency mix is wider than assumed:** beyond euro and dollar, Swiss franc and Swedish krona from AllUnity, sterling from Fiat Republic and Quantoz, zloty and leu from Quantoz.
- **The most recent entry:** Bridge Building S.A., the Luxembourg entity of Stripe-owned Bridge, notified the EURR white paper on 23 July 2026.
The CASP file on the same date carries 330 records across 326 unique names, and the non-compliant list runs to 167 entries, 165 of them filed by Italy's Consob. Tether appears in no issuer register: USDT is not an EMT, and ESMA's statement of 17 January 2025 required providers to restrict services in non-compliant tokens by the end of January 2025, allowing sell-only until the end of Q1; custody and transfer remained permitted. Tether's own route into the EU turned out to be equity — [an investment in Dutch Quantoz](https://tether.io/news/tether-to-make-investment-in-quantoz-launch-of-micar-compliant-stablecoins-leverages-hadron-by-tether-tech-as-part-of-tokenization-expansion/) in November 2024 and in Maltese StablR in December 2024, both of which appear in the register with tokens of their own.

The open question is multi-issuance: the same token issued both by an authorised EU entity and by a structure outside the Union, with the two fungible. [Recommendation ESRB/2025/9 of 25 September 2025](https://www.esrb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/recommendations/esrb.recommendation251020.en.pdf), published in the Official Journal on 21 November 2025, urges the Commission to read MiCA as not permitting such schemes and to report on implementation by 31 December 2026. The European Parliament went the other way in an own-initiative report of 9 July 2026, adopted 390 to 86, backing multi-issuance with safeguards. The Commission has folded the question into its consultation \(Questions 29–31\) and has decided nothing; the practice continues. The response deadline has been extended to 30 September 2026, 23:59 CEST, as stated on the [DG FISMA consultation page](https://finance.ec.europa.eu/regulation-and-supervision/consultations-0/targeted-consultation-review-mica-regulation_en), while the consultation document itself still carries the original date of 31 August 2026.

## EU, US and Hong Kong: how the issuer regimes diverge

| **Parameter** | **EU, EMT under MiCA** | **US, GENIUS Act** | **Hong Kong, Stablecoins Ordinance** |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Who may issue | Credit institution or EMI | Subsidiaries of insured banks, OCC-supervised non-banks, state-qualified issuers | HKMA licensee |
| Capital | EUR 350,000 EMI initial capital plus 2% under Method D; 3% for significant tokens | Set by regulators through rulemaking | Paid-up capital of at least HKD 25 million |
| Reserve | At least 30% on bank deposit, the rest in highly liquid instruments in the same currency | Cash, deposits, bills up to 93 days, repo, money market funds; no deposit floor | High-quality highly liquid assets, coverage at no less than face value |
| Redemption fee | Prohibited, except under recovery plan measures | Permitted if disclosed | Redemption without unreasonable conditions or delay |
| Interest to holders | Prohibited for issuers and service providers, including third-party benefits | Prohibited for issuers | Prohibited |
| Currency perimeter | Cap on non-Member-State currencies: stop issuing at 1 million transactions and EUR 200 million a day | Perimeter defined by issuer, not currency | Licence required for HKD-referenced tokens wherever issued |
| Full treatment | This page | [GENIUS Act](https://wiki.private.law/en/genius-act) | [Stablecoins Ordinance](https://wiki.private.law/en/hk-stablecoin-ordinance) |

## Common mistakes

**Designing an ART where the definition produces an EMT.** A reference to a single official currency makes the token an EMT automatically, whatever the backing and whatever the pitch deck calls it. The cost of the error is structural: an EMI licence instead of an Article 21 authorisation, and the entire reserve construct replaced by safeguarding plus Article 54. For banks, Article 17\(1\)\(b\)\(ii\) requires a legal opinion confirming the token is not an EMT to accompany the notification — the only formalised guard against the error, and a billable one.

**Treating the EMI licence as paperwork bolted onto a MiCA project.** The chronology is the reverse: EMI authorisation in full first, then a 40-working-day notice of intention, then the white paper 20 working days before publication. Planning a launch from the white paper notification date understates the timeline by the duration of the licence itself.

**Building the economics on reserve carry.** Thirty per cent sits on bank deposit by compulsion, there is no redemption fee, and interest to holders is banned along with the workarounds — discounts, third-party rebates, holding-period pricing. The model that works in the US yields a different unit economics in the EU, and that, rather than licensing difficulty, explains the gap between a USD 300 billion global market and a EUR 500 million European one.

**Assuming a bank-issued EMT is safer by definition.** A bank issuer is subject neither to the requirement to maintain a reserve nor to reserve-asset segregation, and its token is not covered by any deposit guarantee scheme — a warning that must appear in the white paper. The Commission has acknowledged the gap and put it out to consultation, but until the Regulation changes it is the law in force.

**Leaving recovery and redemption plans to the end.** The six months run automatically, the regulator can require amendments within 40 working days, and being made subject to a redemption plan is itself a ground for withdrawing an ART authorisation. The plan is not an annex to the file; it is the document that defines the conditions under which the redemption right will be constrained.

**Reading the Article 23 cap as "a limit on non-euro tokens".** Tokens on Member State currencies are outside the perimeter entirely, the thresholds are cumulative, and only payment use within a single currency area counts — exchanges with the issuer or a service provider are stripped out.

## Scenarios

**Issue a euro token for settlement inside the EU.** The route: an EMI licence in a jurisdiction with a working practice, a 40-working-day notice of intention, the white paper 20 working days before publication, an Article 54 reserve with its mandatory 30% on deposit, and recovery and redemption plans within six months of the offer. There will be no white paper approval — responsibility for content stays with the issuer and, personally, with the members of its management bodies.

**Issue a dollar token for the European market.** Everything above, plus the Article 23 cap via Article 58\(3\): reporting above EUR 100,000,000 of issue value, a halt to issuance and a remediation plan on simultaneously breaching 1 million transactions and EUR 200,000,000 of average daily payment volume, and exposure to a minimum-denomination requirement on an ECB opinion. Design the product so that payment flow is separated from trading flow in the accounting from day one — only the former counts.

**Tokenise a basket or a commodity.** That is an ART, and the route differs: Article 21 authorisation running around 130 working days on a complete file, own funds from EUR 350,000 with a possible 20–40% uplift on stress tests, the full reserve, custody and investment chapters, a six-monthly independent audit and monthly disclosure. Add a de facto ECB veto and the uncertainty of two unadopted RTS on what the reserve may hold. The empty register is not an accident; it is the sum of those terms.

**Issue through a bank.** Article 17 for ARTs — a 90-working-day notification and white paper approval instead of authorisation, with Article 35 disapplied; Article 48\(1\)\(a\) for EMTs, with no reserve chapter at all. This is the shortest regulatory path available in the EU, and it explains why Oddo BHF, CACEIS and Banking Circle appear in the register.

**Pilot inside a limited network.** Article 48\(5\) removes Title IV for tokens exempt under Article 1\(4\) and \(5\) of EMD2, leaving only the white paper obligation. A workable construct for a closed ecosystem — already in use, as the Czech register entry shows — but it does not scale: stepping outside the limited network restores the full regime.

> 🍓 The MiCA issuer regime is two machines that do not mirror each other. An EMT is open only to a bank or an EMI, starts on notification without approval, holds at least 30% of funds on bank deposit, and redeems at par at any time without a fee. An ART requires a separate authorisation running roughly 130 working days, own funds from EUR 350,000 with a mandatory 20–40% uplift on stress tests, and the full reserve and custody chapters — and redeems at the market value of the basket rather than at par. As at 18 August 2026 ESMA's register shows 23 EMT issuers with 43 white papers and precisely zero ART issuers, a fact the Commission has put to consultation as a question of its own. And "always, at par, free of charge" holds only in normal conditions: Articles 39\(3\) and 49\(6\) operate "without prejudice to Article 46", and the recovery plan must specify liquidity fees, daily caps and suspension of redemptions in advance.

## Q/A

### **Is an EMI licence unavoidable for issuing a stablecoin in the EU**

For a full public offer, yes — Article 48\(1\) admits only a credit institution or an EMI. The exceptions are narrow and do not scale. Article 48\(4\) disapplies the requirement for issuers exempted under the national waiver in Article 9\(1\) of Directive 2009/110/EC — up to EUR 5,000,000 of average outstanding electronic money, with no passport. Article 48\(5\) removes Title IV for limited-network tokens, leaving only the white paper obligation. Both gates assume the product stays small or closed; breaching the ceiling gives 30 calendar days to apply for full authorisation.

### **How does an ART differ from an EMT if both are pegged to currency**

By the number of currencies in the reference. One official currency makes an EMT; two or more, or a currency combined with anything else, makes an ART. The difference is not cosmetic. An EMT runs only through an EMI or a bank, redeems at par, and carries the Article 54 requirement of 30% on deposit. An ART needs a separate Article 21 authorisation, the full reserve, custody and investment chapters, Article 35 own funds, and redeems at the market value of the referenced assets rather than at par.

### **Can a regulator block redemption**

Yes, and it is designed in. Articles 39\(3\) and 49\(6\) prohibit redemption fees "without prejudice to Article 46", and Article 46\(1\) requires the recovery plan to include liquidity fees, limits on the amount redeemable in a working day and suspension among its options. Article 46\(4\) gives the competent authority its own power to suspend redemption temporarily where justified by holder interests and financial stability. The right of redemption is permanent, not unconditional.

### **What happened to USDT in the EU, and can it come back**

USDT is not an authorised EMT: Tether appears in no ESMA issuer register. By its statement of 17 January 2025 ESMA required providers to restrict services in non-compliant tokens by the end of January 2025, permitting sell-only until the end of Q1; custody and transfer remained available. A return would require authorisation of the issuer as an EU bank or EMI — or multi-issuance, whose lawfulness is contested: the ESRB recommended the Commission read MiCA as not permitting it, the Parliament voted on 9 July 2026 to legitimise it with safeguards, and no decision has been taken. For now Tether's EU presence runs through stakes in the licensed issuers Quantoz and StablR rather than a licence of its own.

---

## FAQ

### Is an EMI licence unavoidable for issuing a stablecoin in the EU

For a full public offer, yes — Article 48(1) admits only a credit institution or an EMI. The exceptions are narrow and do not scale. Article 48(4) disapplies the requirement for issuers exempted under the national waiver in Article 9(1) of Directive 2009/110/EC — up to EUR 5,000,000 of average outstanding electronic money, with no passport. Article 48(5) removes Title IV for limited-network tokens, leaving only the white paper obligation. Both gates assume the product stays small or closed; breaching the ceiling gives 30 calendar days to apply for full authorisation.

### How does an ART differ from an EMT if both are pegged to currency

By the number of currencies in the reference. One official currency makes an EMT; two or more, or a currency combined with anything else, makes an ART. The difference is not cosmetic. An EMT runs only through an EMI or a bank, redeems at par, and carries the Article 54 requirement of 30% on deposit. An ART needs a separate Article 21 authorisation, the full reserve, custody and investment chapters, Article 35 own funds, and redeems at the market value of the referenced assets rather than at par.

### Can a regulator block redemption

Yes, and it is designed in. Articles 39(3) and 49(6) prohibit redemption fees "without prejudice to Article 46", and Article 46(1) requires the recovery plan to include liquidity fees, limits on the amount redeemable in a working day and suspension among its options. Article 46(4) gives the competent authority its own power to suspend redemption temporarily where justified by holder interests and financial stability. The right of redemption is permanent, not unconditional.

### What happened to USDT in the EU, and can it come back

USDT is not an authorised EMT: Tether appears in no ESMA issuer register. By its statement of 17 January 2025 ESMA required providers to restrict services in non-compliant tokens by the end of January 2025, permitting sell-only until the end of Q1; custody and transfer remained available. A return would require authorisation of the issuer as an EU bank or EMI — or multi-issuance, whose lawfulness is contested: the ESRB recommended the Commission read MiCA as not permitting it, the Parliament voted on 9 July 2026 to legitimise it with safeguards, and no decision has been taken. For now Tether's EU presence runs through stakes in the licensed issuers Quantoz and StablR rather than a licence of its own.

---

## Factual claims

- Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 is normally read from the platform's side: licence, passport, custody.
- The regulation as a framework is covered in the MiCA overview, the service-provider route in the CASP licence guide, and stablecoins as a market phenomenon in the types and regulation piece.
- Classification rests on two definitions in Article 3(1) of the Regulation.
- Content is set by Article 19 and Annex II for ARTs, Article 51 and Annex III for EMTs: issuer, token, offer, rights and obligations, technology, risks, and the climate indicators of the consensus mechanism.
- Article 35(1) for an ART issuer: own funds at no less than the highest of EUR 350,000, 2% of the average amount of the reserve of assets, or a quarter of the preceding year's fixed overheads.
- Status as at 20 August 2026: the EBA has published no decision classifying any ART or EMT as significant, and no significant token appears in ESMA's register.
- Article 23 is usually summarised as "the cap on non-euro stablecoins".
- The thresholds in Article 23(1) are themselves cumulative and narrow.

---

Source: wiki.private.law — the private.law legal knowledge base. When quoting, cite the canonical page URL.
Consultation with a lawyer: https://t.me/private_law_bot