The European Banking Authority’s consultation on how it may calculate MiCA fines closes September 28. The deadline will not fine a company or change a stablecoin’s status overnight, but it shows how the EBA could turn a MiCA breach into a penalty.
The deadline ends public feedback on the EBA’s draft methodology for setting fines when it directly supervises significant stablecoin issuers.
Key Takeaways
- The consultation closes on September 28.
- The proposal covers significant stablecoin issuers.
- The draft sets a baseline, then adjusts it.
- The final method will arrive after feedback.
This is a rule for a narrow part of MiCA
The proposal applies to issuers of significant asset-referenced tokens and e-money tokens under direct EBA supervision. It is not a penalty schedule for the wider European crypto market.
An e-money token references one official currency. An asset-referenced token can reference other assets or a combination of values. Becoming significant requires a separate MiCA assessment; it is not a label automatically attached to every euro- or dollar-linked token.
National authorities supervise many crypto-asset service providers, while ESMA maintains a central MiCA register. Significant status can also affect reserve rules, a separate issue examined when the ECB warned about stablecoin-run risks for banks.
The proposed fine method has two steps
MiCA already places legal limits on fines. The EBA’s proposal is about the route to a number inside those limits, rather than inventing a new maximum.
For significant asset-referenced-token issuers, MiCA sets a maximum of 12.5% of annual turnover in the preceding business year. For significant e-money-token issuers, the corresponding ceiling is 10%. Where gains or avoided losses can be determined, the regulation also provides for a higher calculation based on twice that amount.
Why a legal maximum does not make enforcement predictable
A ceiling tells an issuer the worst-case boundary; it does not explain how two different breaches might be treated. A short-lived reporting failure that is promptly disclosed is not the same as a prolonged breach combined with misleading information or repeated failures. The proposed methodology is intended to make those distinctions visible before a case reaches the EBA.
For the market, the value is not a guaranteed outcome. It is a clearer way to assess why one failure could draw a materially different penalty from another, and to examine the EBA’s reasoning when it acts.
After September 28, the EBA takes over
After the consultation closes, the EBA can assess submissions and publish a final methodology. The proposed severity categories, turnover percentages and adjustment factors are still open to comment, so the final document may not match the draft in every respect.
From that point, firms and other stakeholders lose their formal chance to influence the calculation framework before it is finalised. Direct supervision, fines and individual enforcement findings would still follow their own legal process.
The final document will make EBA discretion easier to test
MiCA already sets out who may issue certain crypto-assets and what issuers must disclose. The unresolved question is how the EBA will calculate a penalty when a significant issuer fails to meet those rules. Its final methodology should make that reasoning clearer before the first major enforcement case tests it.
This article is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal, financial or investment advice. The EBA consultation is not a final methodology, and MiCA enforcement responsibilities vary by entity and authority.
Alex is Editor-in-Chief of Coindoo and co-founder of Millennial Media Group, with nearly a decade of experience covering financial markets – crypto first, then everything else.
It started in 2016 with Bitcoin. Like most people at the time, he didn’t fully understand it – so he kept digging. Blockchain, tokenomics, the projects, the cycles. That curiosity never stopped, and eventually pulled him into traditional markets too: equities, commodities, macro. Not because he left crypto behind, but because you can’t properly understand one without the other.
What drives him is straightforward: he wants to know why something is happening, not just that it’s happening. Most market coverage stops at the headline – price up, price down, here’s a chart. Alex finds that kind of reporting actively unhelpful. If you walk away from an article without understanding the mechanism behind the move, what did you actually learn?
He holds a degree in Tourism from New Bulgarian University – not the most obvious path into financial markets, but markets have a way of pulling in people who are simply too curious to stay out. He has authored over 200 in-depth analyses and more than 10,000 articles across crypto and traditional finance. He still thinks every day in markets teaches him something new. That’s probably why he hasn’t stopped.
Be the first to comment