France, Italy, and Austria argue centralisation would prevent “regulatory shopping.” Malta, instead, calls for supervisory convergence while defending efficiency, legal certainty, and competitiveness.
But let’s be clear: this debate is not really about investor protection.
Reality check:
MiCA establishes one law across all 27 Member States. But not all Member States are starting from the same place. While some authorities are ahead of the race, have years of supervisory expertise, invested talent and effort in developing an ecosystem, others are still building their crypto expertise.
This is why CASP applicants look beyond the black-letter law. They seek jurisdictions where:
Supervisory experience is proven
Regulators have engaged with crypto firms long before MiCA.
Communication is straightforward
English as an official language reduces friction in compliance and business operations.
Tax structuring is efficient
Tested corporate and income tax frameworks remain central to business planning.
Workforce expertise is available
Jurisdictions that embraced crypto early have professionals ready to support sustainable growth.
The bigger picture
The current debate is not simply about ESMA versus national regulators. It is about how the EU balances harmonisation with efficiency.
It is worth recalling that passporting is not a luxury, it is enshrined in primary EU law. Rooted in the freedoms of establishment and services, it has long allowed financial firms to operate across the EU/EEA with minimal additional authorisation. With MiCA creating a common rulebook, CASPs should be able to rely on the same freedoms — without political obstacles.
CASPs require clarity, timely supervision, and regulators who understand their industry. And those qualities cannot be legislated into existence overnight.
It is not the first time that we are seeing traditional authorities, ingrained in outdated practices and lacking open-minded officers, seeking to survive in a fast-paced, dynamic industry driven by technology and innovation, by slowing down and, in some cases, demonising more versatile and pragmatic regulators in other jurisdictions.
European powers need to accept that if we genuinely want a competitive Europe, we require more forward-thinking, approachable, and dynamic regulators, and fewer fundamentalist, conservative, and closed-minded ones. The US, China and India are running ahead. We are miserably lagging behind. It is time to shift the tide and take the leap forward to becoming innovation leaders, attracting start-ups and offering them and more established operators a safe space to grow and compete on a global level.
