A MiCA licence does not answer every question. EBA wants the review to address crypto-asset lending too
On 24 September, EBA recommended that the European Commission consider regulating crypto-asset lending, including access through providers’ interfaces. A firm’s authorisation must be read in relation to specific services; the MiCA review is a process.
Take the full article to your ChatGPT, Claude or Gemini and explore what it means for your work.
A company checks a provider's authorisation and finds several options displayed side by side in its application: hold a token, transfer it or put it into a product promising a return. The same screen can give the impression of identical legal protection. Economically, however, these may be three substantially different relationships.
In its September contribution to the MiCA review, the European Banking Authority, EBA, recommends addressing precisely the interface between existing rules and emerging services. It expressly mentions crypto-asset lending, including access to decentralised lending protocols through service providers. The report is an input into the further development of regulation, rather than an announcement of a new licence for these products.
Summary for readers
- On 24 September, EBA recommended that the European Commission consider regulating crypto-asset lending, including situations in which providers facilitate access through their interfaces.
- A provider's valid authorisation must be read in relation to specific services. It does not, by itself, mean approval of every product offered in the same application.
- The MiCA review is a process. Assessing today's offer requires separating the rules currently in force, proposed changes and the contractual risks of the particular operation.
What EBA proposes, and what has not happened yet
In its recommendation of 24 September, EBA sets out priorities for the MiCA review: clearer definitions of asset categories, certain changes to the issuer regime, better reporting, and addressing activities beyond the regulation's current boundaries. In lending activities, it also draws attention to providers facilitating clients' access to decentralised protocols.
The document is a response to the European Commission's targeted consultation. It is not an amendment to the regulation and does not itself introduce a new authorisation regime. For a company preparing a product, it is an important signal of the direction of discussion. For a client assessing an offer, however, the decisive factors remain the legal position and contract applicable when the transaction is entered into.
Regulatory news often compresses several years of development into a single headline. Here, it is worth retaining the precise verb: EBA recommends that the Commission consider a particular area. The recommendation does not establish final wording, an effective date or conditions that may only emerge later.
Lending changes the question the client needs answered
In an illustrative example, a business holds a digital asset intended for a future payment to a supplier. If it merely manages that asset, its main concerns are the ability to transfer it and have it returned. Putting it into a lending operation adds further questions: who is using it, from what source will the principal be repaid, and what happens in the event of delay or insufficient liquidity?
The name of the button in the application is not decisive. An offer labelled as a reward, yield or optimisation may have different legal and economic structures. Without knowing the contract, such offers cannot all be placed in the same category. Even so, it is reasonable to insist on an explanation of the source of the return and the withdrawal terms.
EBA's response to question 67 describes growth in lending, the involvement of stablecoins and easier access through providers' interfaces. It also highlights possible regulatory arbitrage in connection with returns and restrictions on paying interest on the relevant tokens. This does not mean that every yield product has the same classification. It means that its actual operation needs to be examined.
The firm's authorisation and the product's regime are two separate inputs
Article 3 of MiCA defines specific crypto-asset services. Articles 59 and following govern the conditions for providing them. Crypto-asset lending is not a separate service in this list. That does not, however, justify the opposite conclusion that every such activity falls outside all law.
The application of other European or national rules depends on the product's structure, the entities involved and the specific activities. Custody, transfers or other associated services may have their own regimes even where the broader transaction contains another element. A universal label therefore does not provide a reliable answer.
ESMA draws attention to the rules governing access to the provision of services: alongside authorised providers, there are also relevant financial institutions operating under the notification regime in Article 60. Checking a counterparty therefore requires identifying the precise legal entity and specific service, rather than just the brand of the entire group.
A decentralised protocol can have a very ordinary entrance
The idea that only technically skilled people use decentralised finance directly through specialist tools is no longer sufficient for assessing risk. EBA notes that familiar client interfaces can simplify access. For the user, a more complex operation may thus be reduced to a few familiar controls.
Simpler operation is beneficial if it also preserves an understanding of what the client is approving. The opposite situation is a risk: an easy click masks a change of counterparty, a lock-up of funds or the conditions for their return. For corporate finance, the internal approval process therefore matters as well as the application's convenience.
A joint EBA and ESMA report from January 2025 had already analysed lending, staking and decentralised models, including consumer and operational risks. The September recommendation therefore builds on earlier market monitoring; this is not a subject first discovered with this consultation.
Similar tokens need not belong to the same legal category
As early as December 2024, EBA explained that simply recording a bank deposit on a distributed ledger does not, by itself, change the nature of the claim. A tokenised deposit and an electronic money token are therefore not automatically interchangeable terms.
Similarly, ESMA's guidelines on financial instruments base the assessment on the asset's actual characteristics. This classification question comes before a discussion of the system's convenience or speed. If the holder's rights themselves change, retaining the same image of a token in the application is not enough.
For company management, it is useful to request a short description that makes sense without knowing the technology's name: against whom does a claim arise, for what performance, under what conditions and under which framework? A detailed legal analysis complements this overview. A marketing assurance about the compliance of the entire platform does not replace it.
Practical implications for Czech and Slovak companies
Before putting operating funds into a yield product, the finance team should be able to distinguish available money from funds whose return depends on another operation or counterparty. Illustrative liquidity management can use a separate limit, approvals and records of the conditions for return. This is not a recommendation for a particular investment, but a set of questions for any assessment of it.
It is also important to identify which information is still missing. Unpublished rules for liquidating collateral, an uncertain procedure when withdrawals are suspended, or an unclear contracting entity are not details to be filled in after entering the transaction. They may change its usability for the company's planned payments.
The MiCA review has the potential to clarify some boundaries. Yet it already illustrates a practical problem: the scope of protection should not be inferred from the uniform appearance of an application. A company needs to understand the specific relationship it is entering and verify exactly what its counterparty's authorisation covers.
Sources
Methodological note
The article reflects the position as of 25. 9. 2026. EBA's recommendation is consistently distinguished from the regulation in force. The detail of the September response was verified in the available indexed text of question 67; direct access to the complete PDF was unavailable. The illustrative situations are the author's explanations and do not determine the classification of a particular product. References include legal texts, institutional interpretations and their related documents.
Disclaimer
This text is for information and education. It does not constitute legal or investment advice. Assessing a specific service, authorisation and contract requires an individual professional analysis.
What this means for you
AI puts the article in the context of your role, company and industry. Choose the one working document you need now.
Saved outputs and notes are private. Making your profile public does not share them with other users.
Loading account…
Context and outlook
Loading…
Open the full category →Comments
No comments yet. Be the first!
Recommended reading
Related reading based on this article’s topic and category.