MiCA vs the Genius Act: Crypto Regulation in the EU and US

MiCA vs the Genius Act: crypto-asset regulation in the EU and the US

Overview

How do Europe's and the US's approaches to digital-asset regulation compare? In this panel from MERGE Madrid's legal track, GDF (Global Digital Finance), Notabene and the law firm FinReg compare MiCA and the Genius Act and discuss how to do business on both sides of the Atlantic.

What you'll learn

• MiCA's structure: its three blocks (types of crypto-assets, issuers and service providers)
• MiCA vs the Genius Act: how Europe splits stablecoins (EMTs and ARTs) versus the US focus on payment stablecoins
• Competitiveness and fragmentation: the advantage of European regulatory clarity and the challenge of 27 states and supervisors
• TradFi vs crypto-native: why banks find it easier to adapt to MiCA than crypto-native firms
• Travel Rule: implementation differences between the UK, the EU and the US, and the role of the FATF
• Multi-issuance stablecoins and equivalence: the ECB debate and the paths to international equivalence

Session summary

What MiCA is: the panel explains that MiCA is divided into three blocks —the types of crypto-assets (including stablecoins, split into e-money tokens and asset-referenced tokens), the rules and licenses for issuers, and the licenses and conduct rules for service providers— versus a Genius Act more focused on stablecoins as a means of payment.

European competitiveness: it argues that the EU took a bold step as a pioneer with a comprehensive regime, giving it leadership and regulatory clarity; the trade-off is the difficulty of a unified position across 27 states, versus a more unitary US stance.

Different points in the cycle: it recalls that the Genius Act is very recent and not yet in force or developed into rules, so the US is now experiencing the excitement of regulatory clarity while Europe faces the challenges of operationalizing MiCA.

Experience with licensing: it reports that many firms (crypto-native and also traditional banks, with a simpler notification regime) are applying for MiCA licenses; banks find it easier thanks to their regulatory experience (MiCA as MiFID's “little brother”), while crypto-native firms struggle more.

Travel Rule: it compares implementation in the UK (highly coordinated, with the industry defining the guidelines through the JMLSG) with the EU's (more fragmented, 27 supervisors, no designated authority in some countries at the start), with very different adoption data between them.

International convergence: it addresses the multi-issuance stablecoin debate (such as USDC) and the ECB's push to limit them despite their not being banned under MiCA; it compares equivalence paths (the Genius Act offers a route for foreign stablecoins) and mentions FATF standards (recommendation 16) and Basel rules on banks' crypto-asset exposure.

Watch the full panel

Watch the full panel recording on MERGE's YouTube channel, with GDF, Notabene and FinReg on crypto-asset regulation in the EU and the US.

FAQs

How do MiCA and the Genius Act differ?
MiCA is a comprehensive framework that regulates several types of crypto-assets and splits stablecoins into e-money tokens and asset-referenced tokens; the Genius Act focuses mainly on stablecoins as a means of payment, without that split.

Is European regulation a barrier to competitiveness?
According to the panel, MiCA's regulatory clarity is a business enabler rather than a blocker; the main challenge is fragmentation across the 27 member states and their supervisors.

What is the Travel Rule and why does it differ between regions?
It is the obligation to transmit originator and beneficiary information with transfers; its implementation varies by jurisdiction (thresholds, supervision, deadlines), even though it stems from common FATF standards.

What are multi-issuance stablecoins?
They are stablecoins issued by entities in more than one jurisdiction (for example, USDC); their treatment in the EU is under debate due to the ECB's stance, even though they are not banned under MiCA.