25/09/25
This analysis examines how stablecoins are being regulated in major markets, especially in the European Union, and considers what legal issues their growing use for payments raises. The key facts include recent projections about stablecoin growth, regulatory regimes such as MiCA, concerns over monetary sovereignty, and the legal standard risks and measures under active consideration.
📜 EU Regulations and Official Standards
The European Union has adopted the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (“MiCA”, EU Regulation 2023/1114), which became fully applicable in stages through 2023-2024. Under MiCA, issuers of stablecoins (both e-money tokens and asset-referenced tokens) must satisfy authorisation requirements, maintain adequate reserves, ensure consumer disclosure, and provide transparency. MiCA imposes obligations such as reserve backing with high-quality liquid assets, prohibition of redemption fees, and restrictions on interest payments by stablecoins.
The regulation also requires standardised disclosure via a “white paper” when offering stablecoins to the public or admitting them to trading. There is also a principle of “same activities, same risks, same rules” under EU law, ensuring that stablecoin activities are treated consistently with similar financial-market activities. Regulatory supervision is national but under overarching coordination, including by ESMA and national competent authorities. On the international side, the ECB and other European bodies are raising the issue of stablecoins issued outside the EU but used within it: equivalence regimes, cross-border reserve issues, and maintaining monetary policy autonomy are all major concerns.
⚖️ Comparative Analysis: EU vs. Global Approaches
The growth trajectory of stablecoins is steep: market analysts estimate stablecoin supply may increase from around USD 230 billion in 2025 to about USD 2 trillion by the end of 2028. Such growth underscores both opportunity—faster payments, lower cross-border friction-and risk, especially to financial stability and regulatory arbitrage.
In comparison, U.S. regulatory efforts via the 2025 legislative framework introduce strict reserve, audit, and permitting requirements, but the EU’s MiCA regime is seen by many observers as more comprehensive in certain respects. One key concern is the dominance of U.S.-dollar pegged stablecoins used in Europe: this may erode the euro’s role, constrain the European Central Bank’s ability to conduct monetary policy, and create dependency risks. The EU seeks to promote euro-denominated stablecoins and its own digital euro as a counterbalance.
Another comparison point is how reserve backing, redemption rights, disclosure and supervision differ across jurisdictions: some foreign stablecoins may not meet EU standards if their home jurisdiction has lax rules. Also, there is a tension between innovation and regulation: payments firms prefer low friction, but regulators insist on strong protections and stability.
🔍 Practical Evidence and Case Examples
ECB adviser Jürgen Schaaf has warned that if dollar-backed stablecoins become widely used in the EU for payments or settlement, the ECB’s control over monetary conditions could weaken significantly. Another example is “multi-issuance” stablecoins: identical tokens issued by different branches or entities across jurisdictions, which raises legal questions about reserve adequacy, redemption obligations, and cross-border supervision. Italy’s Deputy Governor has urged clarity in these rules.
The case of foreign stablecoin issuers operating in the EU is particularly important: regulators demand equivalence (i.e. foreign regimes that match EU standards) to avoid loopholes. ECB President Lagarde has emphasised that both EU and non-EU issuers should meet high standards. There are examples of euro stablecoins seeking regulatory approval, and of regulatory bodies assessing whether stablecoins issued abroad but used inside the EU must be subject to EU rules or equivalence assessments.
These illustrate that stablecoins intended for payments will increasingly need to navigate a legal regime as strict as that for banks or financial institutions, particularly concerning reserve holding, redemption, transparency, and risk management.
📌 Conclusion
In summary, stablecoins are poised for expanded use in payments, especially cross-border and multi-jurisdictional payments, but they bring legal risks for monetary policy, consumer protection, and financial stability. The EU’s MiCA regulation already lays down many standards: reserve requirements, disclosure obligations, redemption rights, and supervision. Comparison with U.S. regimes shows both convergence and important divergences, particularly around reserve quality, cross-border equivalence, and interest in stablecoins. Evidence from ECB commentary and recent regulatory initiatives (e.g. multi-issuance clarity, foreign issuer equivalence) shows that the legal environment is tightening.
Entities aiming to issue or use stablecoins in regulated markets must ensure full compliance: authorisation, transparency, reserve backing, and alignment with local and EU-level regulation.
👉 If you are interested in legal advice or further assistance in structuring stablecoin projects, navigating regulation, or ensuring regulatory compliance, please contact NUR Legal for specialist counsel in this emerging field.
#LegalFinance #CryptoRegulation #Stablecoins #EUlaw #DigitalPayments #FinTech #MonetaryPolicy #MiCA #DigitalEuro #FinancialStability
Emil Korpinen