Understanding MiCA and Its Global Implications
The European regulation known as MiCA (Markets in Crypto-Assets) has often been viewed as a framework that solely governs the EU markets. However, this perspective oversimplifies the regulation’s broad international implications. Interestingly, obtaining approval to list a token for trading in Europe does not necessitate a local European address. Insights from the European Securities and Market Authority (ESMA) public registers reveal that many token projects under MiCA originate from outside Europe, a fact that many founders might not fully recognize.
Key Findings from Recent Analysis
A recent analysis conducted by LegalBison, released in February 2026, sheds light on this surprising trend. As of March 12, 2026, out of 441 independent token projects recorded in the MiCA databases, only 73 (approximately 17%) are affiliated with companies located within the European Union (EU) or the European Economic Area (EEA). Notably, the majority of the remaining submissions—275 projects, accounting for 62% of the total—come from jurisdictions like the British Virgin Islands (BVI, with 92 projects), Switzerland (61), and the Cayman Islands (44). The remaining 93 entries lack identifiable centralized entities, as seen with cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin.
Opportunities for Offshore Projects
The MiCA regulation focuses on the conditions for trading and the parties involved, rather than the physical location of a project’s corporate headquarters. This rule creates unique opportunities for offshore projects that aim to access the EU market without having to relocate their companies.
Importantly, any crypto-asset that fits within MiCA’s definition—like utility tokens or other specified categories—from a non-EU location is still eligible for listing in Europe. Under MiCA, any entity wishing to sell a crypto-asset to investors in the EU, or to have it listed on a European exchange, must provide a compliant white paper. This requirement primarily impacts the offeror, or the one actively marketing the token in Europe, rather than the original issuer. Many decentralized projects do not have a central issuer; however, the party presenting the token still carries the responsibility of ensuring regulatory adherence.
Regulatory Responsibilities of Trading Platforms
Trading platforms may also take on this regulatory obligation through various arrangements with the project team. A significant consideration that earlier analyses of MiCA overlooked is this regulatory role played by exchanges. Major platforms like Kraken, which has a branch in Ireland, filed 133 records independently, while others like LCX in Liechtenstein submitted 63 filings. In another case, a compliance agency in Germany filed 88 records on behalf of token projects, even when not acting as an exchange.
This distribution demonstrates not only the exchange’s responsibility for regulatory compliance but also the legal risks involved if a white paper fails to comply with MiCA standards. Notably, established crypto-assets with no central issuer—such as Bitcoin and certain popular memecoins—still attract considerable exchanges, indicating their demand among users.
Geographical Insights and Strategic Choices
When excluding the filings made by proxies and compliance providers, we find 477 records representing token projects that engaged directly with national regulators to meet the EU white paper requirement. Among these, only 73 report having their headquarters in the EU or EEA; the majority are from offshore entities strategically navigating the European market through these filings.
The data highlights that Ireland and Malta are the two leading jurisdictions for independent token registrations, accounting for two-thirds of all submissions. Ireland shows 151 filings from 147 unique entities, while Malta has 145 from 95 entities, each reflecting a diverse range of tokens currently available on European exchanges.
For offshore entities considering entry into the EU regulatory landscape, the choice between Ireland and Malta hinges upon the practical functioning of their respective regulations. Ireland, with its favorable English-language process and robust tech industry, becomes primarily a regulatory access point for these entities. In contrast, Malta offers more localized regulatory engagement, benefiting projects seeking closer ties to a community of compliance experts fostered by a decade of specific crypto regulation.
Categories of Crypto-Assets Under MiCA
MiCA categorizes crypto-assets into three distinct types: Electronic Money Tokens (EMTs), Asset-Referenced Tokens (ARTs), and other crypto-assets. Notably, the EMT register has 36 entries as of mid-March 2026, a number that reflects the strict requirements for authorization as an Electronic Money Institution (EMI) or banking institution, generally limiting participation to established banks and payment firms. This leaves startups at a disadvantage as high capital and solvency requirements pose significant barriers to entry for stablecoin issuance under MiCA.
In contrast, there have been no recorded ARTs, despite the category’s intention to accommodate tokens like DAI that tie their value to a collection of assets. This absence may be due to stringent capital requirements and rigorous authorization processes, making it easier for the market to gravitate toward single-currency-backed stablecoins.
Conclusion
As the cryptocurrency regulatory landscape continues to evolve, LegalBison aids crypto and FinTech companies in navigating MiCA compliance, CASP and VASP applications, and white paper structuring across Europe and beyond. Further insights can be found at legalbison.com. This analysis is based on data gathered as of March 12, 2026, and should not be interpreted as legal counsel.
