The European Securities and Markets Authority has told national supervisors to ensure that authorized crypto-asset service providers address remaining exposure to stablecoins that do not comply with the European Union’s Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation within three months.
In an opinion dated October 8, ESMA said remediation should happen as soon as possible and no later than three months after publication, which puts the end of the supervisory window on January 8, 2027. The opinion is addressed primarily to national competent authorities rather than directly imposing a new rule on individual firms. It sets out how ESMA expects those authorities to apply MiCA consistently.
The measure covers asset-referenced tokens and e-money tokens for which the conditions for a lawful EU public offer or admission to trading under MiCA are not met. ESMA’s position is that authorized service providers should not maintain or facilitate EU clients’ access to those tokens.
Scope extends beyond trading and exchange
ESMA said supervisors should assess all MiCA-regulated crypto services, individually and in combination. Its list includes operating a trading platform, exchanging crypto-assets, executing or transmitting orders, placing tokens, providing advice, transfers, custody and portfolio management.
That breadth matters for payments and wallet businesses. Compliance cannot be limited to removing a trading pair while leaving the same token available through custody, transfer or other routes that allow an EU client to acquire or increase a position. ESMA expects technical, contractual and organizational controls that prevent non-compliant asset-referenced or e-money tokens from remaining available through an authorized provider’s services.
The opinion does not say that every service involving such a token is itself a public offer or admission to trading. Instead, ESMA argues that continued service provision can be incompatible with a provider’s duty under MiCA to act honestly, fairly and professionally in clients’ best interests. In its assessment, client warnings or acknowledgements are not an adequate substitute for the issuer-level safeguards required by MiCA.
Those safeguards can include redemption rights, reserve or safeguarding requirements, governance, disclosure and ongoing supervision. ESMA said allowing non-compliant tokens to remain accessible would create an uneven playing field for issuers that bear the cost of meeting those requirements.
Limited exit services may continue temporarily
ESMA left room for national authorities to permit narrowly defined services needed for an orderly wind-down and to avoid client harm. These may include liquidation, conversion, withdrawal, transfer and safekeeping of existing holdings.
That exception is not a general continuation right. ESMA said residual services should be time-limited, communicated clearly to clients and closely supervised. They should not support new acquisitions, promotion, active distribution, continued trading or broader market availability. The opinion’s conclusion describes permissible continuation in terms of sell-only, conversion, transfer or withdrawal functions necessary to avoid client detriment.
For service providers, the operational task is therefore twofold: block new or increased exposure while preserving carefully controlled paths for customers to exit or safeguard positions. Firms may need to align product restrictions, customer communications, token inventories and geographic controls so that one service does not undermine restrictions applied elsewhere.
A supervisory convergence step
The October opinion expands on earlier European Commission and ESMA guidance concerning services tied to stablecoins that do not meet MiCA requirements. ESMA said the new opinion does not change its earlier position; it addresses the broader question of whether continued services are compatible with MiCA duties even when a particular service is not itself treated as a public offer or admission to trading.
ESMA also said it will monitor implementation with national authorities. The practical timing and form of instructions to individual firms will depend on the relevant national supervisor, but the opinion gives those authorities a common deadline and a common expectation: new exposure should be prevented, while any temporary service for existing customers should be confined to an orderly exit.