Skip to content
Blockchain LabTHE VENTURE STUDIO

BLOCKCHAIN LAB BRIEFING · REGULATION

MiCA Splits E-Money Tokens from Asset-Referenced Tokens. The Split Is the Product.

Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 does not treat every token that tracks a price as the same instrument. An e-money token and an asset-referenced token carry different issuer duties.

2 October 2026

All briefings

01

What happened

Regulation (EU) 2023/1114, the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation, draws a line between an e-money token that references a single official currency and an asset-referenced token that references a basket, a commodity, or more than one currency. The text is the classification. A marketing word such as stablecoin is not.

The distinction shows up in who may issue, what the reserve must look like, and what a holder is entitled to ask for. A payout integration that stores one contract address and calls every dollar-referenced token the same object has already skipped the statute.

02

Why it matters

A European corporate treasury, a marketplace, or a wallet that lists tokens for EU users is choosing a legal category, not a ticker. The category decides redemption, disclosure, and which firm is allowed to mint.

Outside the EU the same token can be described differently. MiCA does not travel as a global licence. It travels as a constraint on activity directed at the Union.

03

The operating layer

Map the token to the issuer’s own classification before you map it to a chain. Record the reference asset, the redemption currency, the significant-token status if any, and the firm that can be sued for a failed redemption. The chain identifier is the last field, not the first.

If a product needs a claim on one official currency, an asset-referenced design is the wrong shape even when the price looks stable. If a product needs a basket, an e-money token is the wrong shape even when one component is a dollar.

04

What is verified

Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 is in force and published on EUR-Lex. Titles on e-money tokens and asset-referenced tokens are separate. Blockchain Lab is not giving a legal opinion on any named issuer.

05

What remains unclear

Whether a particular non-EU issuer has notified, been authorised, or is relying on a transitional arrangement for a given token. Whether a white paper on a website matches the document filed with a competent authority.

National supervisors still publish their own registers. A blog post that says MiCA-ready is not an entry on a register.

06

The catch

Calling both instruments stablecoins hides the duty that matters: what the holder can demand, from whom, in which currency, and on what timetable. A peg in a chart is not that duty.

This briefing is not advice to issue, list, or avoid any token.

WATCH

What builders should watch

  1. 01The issuer’s own classification of each token it mints for EU users.
  2. 02Whether redemption is at par in the referenced currency, and who operates the desk.
  3. 03Which competent authority, if any, appears on the issuer’s own disclosure.

BOTTOM LINE

Use the statute’s categories. A single stablecoin balance in a ledger is not a MiCA analysis.

Sources

Blockchain Lab uses public social posts as reporting leads, not as proof. Every published briefing is assessed against primary sources, available documentation and relevant technical context. Social engagement is not used as evidence of the underlying claim.

Continue