The Markets in Crypto Assets (MiCA) regulation has been a topic of intense discussion in the European Union. While it promises to bring much-needed clarity to the regulatory landscape of crypto assets, many experts believe that MiCA may already need to be updated in terms of its scope. This is because it fails to address more recent developments in blockchain applications, such as Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs), Decentralized Finance (DeFi), Web 3, and algorithmic stablecoins.
DeFi refers to financial services that are managed in a decentralized manner on a blockchain, using smart contracts to automate transactions. Some popular DeFi tools include decentralized exchanges (DEXs), lending platforms, and algorithmic stablecoins. These services offer advantages over traditional finance, such as increased accessibility, anonymity, reduced transaction costs, and faster execution of services.
However, the multifaceted and complex nature of DeFi, along with the emerging concept of Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs), creates challenges for legislators and regulators in drafting clear definitions and rules. DAOs, for example, blur the line between active managers and passive token holders, making it difficult to determine the appropriate regulatory approach.
MiCA Scope and Applicability in the Context of Decentralization
Recital 22 of the MiCA regulation outlines the applicability of the regulation to various entities, services, and activities within the crypto-asset ecosystem. The recital emphasizes the following key points:
Applicability to Natural and Legal Persons: MiCA applies to both natural and legal persons and certain other undertakings involved in the crypto-asset industry. The regulation governs the services and activities performed, provided, or controlled by these entities, directly or indirectly.
Decentralized Services and Activities: MiCA acknowledges that some crypto-asset services and activities may be performed in a decentralized manner. The regulation applies to such decentralized activities when they are, in part or in whole, controlled or provided by an intermediary.
Fully Decentralized Services: If a crypto-asset service is provided in a fully decentralized manner without any intermediary, it is excluded from the scope of MiCA. This provision underscores the regulation's limitation in addressing the complexities of DeFi and DAOs, as previously discussed.
Crypto-assets with No Identifiable Issuer: Titles II, III, or IV of MiCA (regulation of asset-referenced tokens, e-money tokens, and other crypto-assets) do not apply to crypto-assets with no identifiable issuer. However, crypto-asset service providers offering services related to such crypto-assets are still subject to the regulation.
"Other undertakings" under MiCA
In the context of MiCA, "other undertakings" refers to entities involved in the crypto-asset ecosystem but do not fall under the category of natural or legal persons. These undertakings may engage in crypto-asset-related activities or services and are thus subject to the regulation.
The term "undertaking" is consistently used throughout the MiCA text and can be found in Articles 2 (Scope), 3 (Definitions), in the definitions of "offeror" and "crypto-asset service provider," but is not explicitly defined in MiCA. Still, it is commonly used in EU law to describe an economic unit engaged in economic activity, irrespective of its legal form. The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), particularly in the context of competition law, uses the term "undertaking" to refer to any entity engaged in economic activities, whether it is a sole trader, a partnership, a corporation, or any other form of business organization.
In the case of MiCA, "other undertakings" could include entities that are not legal persons but still play a role in the crypto-asset space, such as partnerships, unincorporated associations, or other non-corporate entities involved in issuing or managing crypto-assets, providing crypto-asset services, or carrying out other related activities.
While the term "undertaking" is broad and encompasses various types of entities involved in the crypto-asset ecosystem, it does not extend to fully decentralized entities. MiCA explicitly excludes fully decentralized systems or services that operate without any intermediary from its scope.
This exclusion highlights the challenge the current MiCA framework faces in regulating decentralized entities. The exclusion implies that MiCA is primarily designed to address the risks associated with centralized actors in the crypto-asset space, leaving a regulatory gap for emerging decentralized systems. As the blockchain industry continues to evolve, it remains to be seen whether MiCA or future EU regulations will adapt to address the unique characteristics and risks associated with decentralized entities more effectively.
"Fully Decentralized"
The concept of "fully decentralized" services in the context of MiCA regulation is an important distinction when determining the applicability of the regulatory framework to various entities within the blockchain and crypto space. However, this term has yet to be universally accepted legal definition.
One of the key characteristics of fully decentralized services is the absence of a central authority or intermediary, with decisions and operations being carried out autonomously by a network of participants. For instance, decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) may be considered fully decentralized if their governance structures and decision-making processes are based on collective input from token holders, without any single party having control or authority over the organization. Services like decentralized exchanges (DEXs) and lending platforms operate on smart contracts without intermediaries. Such platforms are governed by a decentralized network of participants, with no single party exercising control over the system.
Legally speaking, "fully decentralized" may be interpreted as a system where no single entity or individual can be held accountable for the actions of the platform or service due to the distributed nature of decision-making and control. In the context of MiCA regulation, fully decentralized services are considered to be outside the scope of the regulation, as no identifiable issuer or intermediary is involved in providing the services.
To determine whether a service is fully decentralized, regulators and legal experts may examine factors such as the extent of decentralization in decision-making processes, the role of token holders, and the level of human intervention or control over the platform's operations. Ultimately, the interpretation of "fully decentralized" will depend on each platform or service's specific circumstances and characteristics and may evolve as the industry and technology develop.
DeFi: Decentralized Exchanges, Lending Systems, and Others
Decentralized Finance (DeFi) has gained significant attention due to its benefits over traditional financial services. These services operate on a blockchain, leveraging smart contracts to automate transactions and remove intermediaries. Regulating DeFi presents unique challenges for legislators accustomed to traditional legal concepts and financial structures. The complexity, multifaceted nature, and rapidly evolving landscape of DeFi make it challenging to draft clear and compelling definitions and rules.
One key challenge in regulating DeFi is the absence of clear distinctions between active stakeholders of Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs) and passive token holders with limited influence over the platform's operations. This lack of clarity complicates the regulatory process, as traditional regulations often depend on identifying specific actors and their roles within a system. Furthermore, DeFi's inherent decentralization and reliance on smart contracts make it resistant to centralized control, complicating enforcement efforts. As a result, regulators must adapt their approaches and consider novel regulatory frameworks to effectively address the unique characteristics of DeFi services and protect the interests of all stakeholders involved.
* * *
As the landscape of Web3 innovations continues to grow and diversify, it is evident that MiCA's current provisions may not adequately address these emerging technologies' complex and multifaceted nature. The legal implications surrounding the regulation of DeFi services and DAO governance highlight the need for adaptive and flexible regulatory approaches.
In this ever-changing environment, it is critical for companies operating in the blockchain and crypto-asset space to stay informed about the evolving regulatory landscape and understand how MiCA may impact their businesses. Our team is dedicated to helping organizations navigate these complex regulations and ensure compliance with the full scope of MiCA obligations. Please get in touch with us for more details.
DISCLAIMER: The information provided is not legal, tax, or accounting advice and should not be used as such. It is for discussion purposes only. Seek guidance from your legal counsel and advisors on any matters. The views presented are those of the author and not any other individual or organization. The information provided is for general educational purposes only and is not investment advice. The author of this material makes no guarantees or warranties about the accuracy or completeness of the information. A professional should review any action based on the information discussed. The author is not liable for any loss from acting on the information discussed.
Comentários