ESMA’s opinion on services linked to non-MiCA stablecoins

On 8 October 2026, ESMA published an opinion addressed to national competent authorities (NCAs): crypto-asset service providers (CASPs) should provide no service on a non-MiCA-compliant stablecoin, meaning an asset-referenced token (ART) or e-money token (EMT) whose offer in the Union breaches MiCA. The opinion covers every service, custody and transfer included, and recommends that NCAs require remediation no later than three months after its publication, which is 8 January 2027 by our calculation.

What does ESMA’s opinion of 8 October 2026 say?

ESMA gives this opinion to the national competent authorities under Article 29(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 (ESMA opinion ESMA75-113276571-1742, paragraphs 1 and 9). It follows Commission Q&A 2404 and ESMA’s public statement of 17 January 2025 (paragraph 4).

A service provided on a non-compliant token exposes the client to risks that the CASP can neither identify, manage nor mitigate: those that arise from the absence of the safeguards MiCA imposes on the issuer. ESMA draws a presumption from this: providing a service on such a token is incompatible with Article 66(1) of MiCA, under which CASPs act honestly, fairly and professionally in the best interests of their clients and prospective clients (Regulation (EU) 2023/1114; opinion, paragraphs 12 and 13).

A non-compliant token is an ART or EMT for which the conditions of a lawful offer to the public or admission to trading in the Union are not met under Title III or IV of MiCA, exemptions and transitional arrangements included (opinion, footnote 1).

What has changed since the statement of 17 January 2025?

On 17 January 2025, the Commission’s Q&A 2404 and an ESMA public statement tied these services to Titles III and IV of MiCA. Operators of platforms that list an ART or EMT whose issuer is not authorised are deemed to seek its admission to trading on their own initiative. For exchange, reception and transmission of orders and execution, the Commission takes a case-by-case approach, depending on whether the provider promotes the token.

The 2026 opinion does not change that position (paragraph 7) and does not use its criterion: its conclusion does not depend on whether each service qualifies as an offer or an admission (paragraph 14). The legal basis, the services covered and the treatment of client information change as follows.

Which services and tokens are covered, and what remains allowed?

ESMA expects national authorities to consider whether a CASP’s services, individually or in combination, allow clients in the Union to acquire, trade, exchange, subscribe for or increase their exposure to a non-compliant token, or otherwise to access or maintain it (paragraph 21). The list covers every crypto-asset service, from operating a trading platform to portfolio management. The CASP puts in place technical, contractual and organisational controls that prevent these tokens from being available in the Union, including the acquisition or increase of a position (paragraph 22).

ESMA finds warnings, additional disclosures and client acknowledgements insufficient: they prevent neither the availability nor the use of the token, and they do not replace the missing safeguards (paragraph 19).

One exception remains. National authorities may allow a CASP that does not yet comply to provide strictly limited residual services, where they are necessary for an orderly wind-down and to avoid client detriment (paragraph 23). These services are limited to the liquidation, conversion, withdrawal, transfer or safekeeping of existing holdings, with no new acquisition or active distribution of the token; they are time-limited, clearly communicated to clients and subject to close supervisory scrutiny (paragraph 24).

Do CASPs need to analyse flows, and not only their list of tokens?

In our view, the opinion requires CASPs to analyse flows end to end, and not only the list of tokens open to clients. Paragraph 21 is not limited to the token the client holds or trades: it covers services that, individually or in combination, allow a client to acquire a non-compliant token, to increase exposure to it, or otherwise to access or maintain it.

An unauthorised EMT can therefore be offered indirectly, as a pivot asset between two crypto-assets or between a fiat currency and a crypto-asset. Take a client who exchanges one crypto-asset for another: the order runs in two steps, through a non-compliant stablecoin that the client neither sees nor holds once the transaction ends. The same applies to a purchase of a crypto-asset for euros whose counterparty settles through such a stablecoin.

The opinion does not address this case expressly. Its wording (paragraphs 14, 21 and 22) leads us to include it, since it no longer makes the conclusion depend on promotion of the token or on its qualification as an offer; the position is not settled, and a national authority may take a narrower view. In practice, the CASP maps, for each service, the tokens that cross the flow (origin, intermediate step, destination, liquidity) and the status of each issuer.

What deadline should CASPs use?

Where NCAs identify remaining legacy exposures, ESMA recommends that they require remediation as soon as possible and no later than three months after the date of publication of the opinion (paragraph 27). This period is a maximum addressed to authorities, which may shorten it for a given CASP. The date of 8 January 2027 comes from our calculation; the text sets no date. Any continued service is limited to the sell-only, conversion, transfer or withdrawal functionalities necessary to avoid client detriment, and remains time-limited, risk-based and closely supervised (paragraph 27).

What should a CASP with a non-compliant token in its flows do?

The CASP starts with an inventory: it lists the ARTs and EMTs it handles, pivot assets included, and checks for each that the offer in the Union complies with Titles III and IV of MiCA, which requires an authorised issuer (Q&A 2404). It builds this check into its ongoing compliance under MiCA.

For each non-compliant token, it blocks acquisitions and increases of position, then reserves for clients’ existing holdings only the liquidation, conversion, withdrawal, transfer or safekeeping that the national authority lets it maintain (paragraphs 22 and 24). It informs the affected clients of the restrictions and the timetable. It keeps a record of its analysis, flow by flow, to present to its supervisor.

What is the legal status of the opinion?

The opinion is addressed primarily to national authorities (paragraph 9). It creates no new obligation by itself: ESMA sets out in it the interpretation of Article 66(1) that it expects authorities to follow, and which they may apply to each CASP they supervise.

In our view, a CASP should build this expectation into its business now, without waiting for the deadline: its supervisor may assess its services against this criterion, and the three-month period, which is a maximum, runs from publication of the opinion.

We also advise on issuing a stablecoin under MiCA and on payment services linked to crypto-assets.