ESMA opinion: CASPs should stop services in non-MiCA-compliant stablecoins

On 8 October 2026 ESMA issued an opinion under Article 29(1)(a) of its founding Regulation, which lets it address opinions to national competent authorities to build consistent supervisory practice. The opinion is addressed primarily to those authorities. It complements Commission Q&A 2404 and ESMA's earlier public statement on services in such tokens, and does not change them.

A token is non-MiCA-compliant when the conditions for a lawful offer to the public or admission to trading in the EU under Title III (asset-referenced tokens) or Title IV (e-money tokens) of MiCA are not met, taking into account any exemptions or transitional arrangements. ESMA's conclusion is short: "CASPs should not provide crypto-asset services in relation to ARTs or EMTs that are not compliant with the applicable requirements under MiCA".

ESMA grounds this on the duty in Article 66(1) of MiCA to act honestly, fairly and professionally in clients' best interests. Holders of such tokens lack the issuer safeguards MiCA requires, such as redemption rights, a reserve of assets or safeguarding, governance, disclosure and ongoing supervision. In ESMA's view a CASP cannot manage those risks itself, so there is a presumption that providing any MiCA service in these tokens breaches Article 66(1). This holds whether or not a given service amounts to an offer to the public or admission to trading under Articles 16(1) or 48(1).

Every crypto-asset service is covered, whether provided alone or in combination: operating a trading platform, exchange, execution of orders, reception and transmission of orders, placing, advice, transfers, custody and portfolio management. Supervisors should check whether a CASP's services let EU clients acquire, trade, exchange, subscribe for, increase or keep exposure to such tokens.

CASPs should not maintain, introduce or facilitate access to these tokens for EU clients, and should put in place technical, contractual and organisational controls that stop EU clients acquiring or increasing positions in them. Warnings will not do. "ESMA considers that reliance on warnings, disclosures or client acknowledgements would not sufficiently address the concerns identified in this Opinion." ESMA adds that allowing such tokens would let issuers circumvent MiCA, distort competition with compliant issuers and weaken investor confidence.

Supervisors may allow CASPs that do not yet comply to offer strictly limited residual services where these are needed for an orderly wind-down and to avoid harm to clients. Those services are limited to the liquidation, conversion, withdrawal, transfer or safekeeping of existing holdings. They should not support new purchases, promotion, trading, active distribution or continued market availability, and they should be time-limited, clearly explained to clients and closely supervised.

Where supervisors find remaining legacy exposures, they should require remediation as soon as possible and no later than three months after the opinion's publication on 8 October 2026, which is 8 January 2027. Any continued service should be limited to sell-only, conversion, transfer or withdrawal functions, and be time-limited, risk-based and closely supervised. ESMA will monitor, with the national authorities, how quickly the opinion is applied.

National supervisors, including in Cyprus, are expected to assess whether any authorised CASP still provides services in non-compliant tokens. Firms should list every asset-referenced and e-money token they support and check its MiCA status: an asset-referenced token needs an issuer authorised under MiCA or a credit institution that complies with Article 17 of MiCA, and an e-money token needs an issuer that is a credit institution or an electronic money institution with a white paper notified to the competent authority and published.

For each non-compliant token, firms should review every service line, from listing and order routing to custody, transfers and portfolio mandates, block new purchases and increases for EU clients, and prepare a wind-down plan and client communications that meet the three-month limit. For background, see our study note on CASP registration and MiCA and our study note on CASP organisational requirements.