Sure, here’s a creatively rewritten version of the article:
—
**Addressing Collaboration Issues:**
In instances where a country’s regulatory body declines cooperation or fails to respond promptly to information requests, other nations can escalate the matter to ESMA or EBA for coordinated resolution. This process resembles submitting an issue to INTERPOL, seeking their intervention and mediation.
**Impact of the MiCA Proposal:**
**Impact 1: Removal of Privacy Coins**
Cryptocurrencies with built-in anonymity features, such as Monero and Zcash, known as “privacy coins,” may only be permitted on trading platforms within the EU if CASPs or relevant regulatory bodies can identify token holders and their transaction histories. Since achieving this in practice is unlikely, it’s expected that EU-regulated cryptocurrency exchanges will delist privacy coins from their offerings.
**Impact 2: Easier Licensing for CASPs with Existing European Licenses**
CASP operators already licensed under national frameworks stand to benefit from simplified MiCA authorization processes, with up to 18 months to obtain a final MiCA license. For instance, regulated crypto custodians in Germany could leverage these streamlined procedures and transitional measures. However, only CASPs licensed under MiCA will have the opportunity to provide services across the entire EU single market through cross-border licensing, motivating most cryptocurrency firms to expedite MiCA licensing applications.
**Impact 3: Unified European Market**
MiCA regulations promise unified oversight, enhanced competitiveness, and institutional development. Until now, EU crypto firms seeking to serve the entire EU market had to apply to each member state’s regulatory authority, resulting in high costs and bureaucracy. Under MiCA, uniform EU requirements will apply across all 27 member states. Once a company obtains a MiCA license in one country, it can offer licensed services throughout the EU single market via “passporting.”
**Impact 4: Restrictions on Offshore Firms, Benefits for EU Enterprises**
Following MiCA’s implementation, offshore and unregulated firms will struggle to attract EU customers actively. Even rules allowing foreign firms to onboard clients upon EU user initiative will become more stringent. Consequently, MiCA-regulated crypto enterprises are poised to capture larger EU market shares from these unregulated overseas competitors.
**Impact 5: MiCA Encouraging Institutional Participation, Accelerating European Banking Initiatives**
MiCA could lead to increased institutional adoption and activities in the EU crypto market. According to Bloomberg, only 4% of European institutional funds are currently exposed to crypto assets, with regulatory uncertainty being a major barrier to institutional entry. Over the next 48 months, major European banks are expected to launch crypto asset services, including custody, trading, and the issuance of electronic currency tokens or asset-reference tokens.
**Impact 6: Effects on Stablecoin Issuers**
The new regulatory rules under MiCA present significant compliance challenges for stablecoin issuers like Tether, especially given Tether’s historical issues with transparency regarding its reserve status and composition, alongside legal inquiries and investigations. Future compliance costs for stablecoin issuers, represented by Tether, are expected to increase significantly under MiCA.
**Impact 7: MiCA’s Impact on DeFi**
MiCA applies to enterprises—natural persons, legal entities, and “certain other undertakings.” MiCA clarifies that fully decentralized DAOs and protocols are not targeted by these new regulations. However, nuances in the law suggest that even partially centralized activities or services within DeFi projects might still fall under MiCA’s purview, prompting likely enforcement and litigation around this issue.
**Impact 8: Challenges and Uncertainties**
However, the actual success of MiCA will heavily depend on the implementation standards and enforcement practices that EU regulatory authorities develop over the next 12-18 months. Certain provisions may burden industry participants, with their full impact only becoming evident once technical implementation standards provide practical operational guidelines.
**Impact 9: High Compliance Costs and Innovation Hurdles**
Similar to recent trends in Hong Kong, excessively high compliance costs may drive businesses away, potentially diverting stablecoin issuers from the EU. Disclosure requirements and responsibilities faced by exchanges could render their products less competitive against offshore counterparts, forcing EU consumers to either miss out on innovation or continue using (and being exposed to) major offshore liquidity and utility pools. Additionally, regulatory bodies might consider most NFT and DeFi projects as falling within MiCA’s scope, potentially leading to inevitable team and resource migrations out of the EU.
**Can MiCA Become a Global Standard?**
MiCA holds promise as the GDPR of the cryptocurrency realm—a regulatory standard widely adopted globally. However, its status as a global standard remains uncertain.
Undoubtedly, MiCA will significantly influence the cryptocurrency framework in jurisdictions with limited financial regulatory and supervisory experience. Concepts proposed in recent Financial Stability Board (FSB) recommendations for crypto service providers and “global stablecoin arrangements” have drawn inspiration from MiCA.
The EU market, the world’s largest internal market with 450 million relatively affluent consumers, will likely compel many companies worldwide to adopt MiCA’s operational standards, potentially aligning internationally to maintain global operational and product consistency. The global impact of EU regulatory standards across multiple industries has been observed, from chemicals to agriculture and technology—a phenomenon referred to as the “Brussels Effect” by Columbia Law School Professor Anu Bradford.
Caroline Pham, current Commissioner at the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), warned: “With the US struggling to provide regulatory clarity for its domestic crypto industry, global regulatory frameworks like MiCA could fill this void.”
While the potential global influence of MiCA standards grows amidst ongoing vacuum in US crypto asset regulation, the true success of MiCA remains key, with much of the actual implementation work still ahead. If proven feasible for industries, consumers, and regulatory bodies alike, MiCA could indeed exert a global influence. Otherwise, many jurisdictions may opt for entirely different policy paths. Ultimately, time and market dynamics will reveal the answer.
Even staunch cryptocurrency advocates, grappling with the collapse of FTX, acknowledge the need for some form of reasonable regulation to propel the sector forward and prevent the gravest instances of fraud.
—
This version maintains the original article’s essence while presenting the information in a more creative and fluent manner, ensuring accuracy and clarity throughout.
