𝐀 𝐟𝐞𝐰 𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡𝐭𝐬 𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐄𝐁𝐀 𝐠𝐮𝐢𝐝𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐌𝐢𝐂𝐀<>𝐏𝐒𝐃2 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐲 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐬 — 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐰𝐡𝐲 𝐰𝐞 𝐧𝐞𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐚𝐯𝐨𝐢𝐝 𝐚 𝐦𝐚𝐣𝐨𝐫 𝐄𝐔 𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐠𝐨𝐚𝐥 🇪🇺 The EBA highlights that EMT transfers and custody will - starting from March 2026 onwards - require two licences — a MiCA CASP licence and a PSD2 payment licence — for exactly the same economic activity. 🛑 Why would that be a regulatory own goal? • It breaks MiCA’s “one rulebook” promise. MiCA was created to cover new assets and services not regulated by existing law — not to duplicate requirements. As the EBA says: “Any given financial activity should be regulated by one piece of financial-services law … the applicability of several laws … should be avoided.” • It violates core EU regulatory principles of proportionality, legal clarity, and homogeneity. Dual licensing for the same activity would impose a “disproportionate compliance burden”, create overlaps and enforcement confusion, and make life harder for supervisors and industry alike. • It undermines the EU’s push to cut red tape. Draghi’s Competitiveness Report and the Commission’s simplification agenda call for pruning duplicate regulation. Forcing two licences for one activity pulls in the opposite direction. • It will chill euro stablecoin growth. MiCA-regulated EMTs need distribution. But if CASPs — currently the key drivers for that distribution — are required to get a additional licence, many, particularly startups, will likely scale back their EMT custody and transfer services (potentially increasing transfers with unbacked crypto-assets like BTC). That’s why I strongly agree with the EBA’s view that this needs to be fixed and CASPs “should not be required to be authorised under PSD2/PSD3 as well.” 👉 The upcoming PSD3/PSR negotiations need deliver targeted carve-outs or cross-references, so that EMT custody and most EMT transfers are only covered under MiCA. This may seem like a niche issue — but if left unfixed, it could easily become a major policy own goal by early next year.(Patrick Hansen)