Cardano Foundation tells EU to revise MiCA before expanding into DeFi
The Cardano Foundation is pushing back against EU plans to expand MiCA into decentralized finance, arguing regulators should fix the existing framework first and apply it only to activities that involve actual custody or control of customer assets. The distinction matters to institutional crypto operators because DeFi protocol infrastructure itself would escape licensing requirements under Cardano’s interpretation, while staking delegation, where users retain control, would not trigger financial-services regulation.
- Cardano Foundation opposes new DeFi and staking regulations, urging EU to apply existing MiCA framework to activities involving customer asset control only
- Benjamin Buergi, senior legal counsel, stated regulation should follow substance of activity and functions performed, not the technology used
- ESMA, EBA, ECB and AMLA want tighter rules, clearer disclosures, licensing for DeFi access providers, and legal definitions of decentralized arrangements
- 132 of 143 jurisdictions had not applied FATF standards to qualifying DeFi arrangements as of July 21
- €362 billion euro-denominated spot trading volume in 2025, up 31% from prior year
- $570 million in losses from two April 2026 attacks linked to North Korea, around 76% of reported virtual-asset hacking losses that year at the time
The Cardano Foundation released a statement on October 21 opposing any expansion of the EU’s Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA) into decentralized finance and staking before existing implementation gaps are closed. Rather than creating separate rulebooks for DeFi and staking, the Foundation argues that regulators should apply MiCA’s current framework selectively, only to entities that actually control or hold customer assets or make decisions on their behalf. The position directly contradicts guidance from the European Securities and Markets Authority, the European Banking Authority and the European Central Bank, which have each called for broader regulatory reach and stricter oversight of the growing DeFi sector.
Cardano argues delegation without custody should escape MiCA entirely
In its September 30 response to the European Commission’s consultation on MiCA’s review, the Foundation distinguished between staking arrangements where validators or intermediaries control customer assets and those where they do not. On Cardano, token holders can delegate their stake to validators while retaining full custody and control of their coins, the tokens remain unlocked and in the holder’s wallet. The Foundation contends this structure should not trigger financial-services licensing, because the delegation is not custody transfer. It further argued that merely providing blockchain infrastructure or network access does not itself constitute a regulated financial activity, even if that infrastructure enables financial services downstream.
Regulation should follow the substance of an activity, the functions performed, and the risks created, not the technology through which it is conducted.
Benjamin Buergi, senior legal counsel, Cardano Foundation
The distinction cuts to a core tension in crypto regulation: whether the law should treat the protocol layer, which distributes access without holding assets, the same way as intermediaries that hold customer funds or make staking choices on their behalf.
Regulators want mandatory licensing and yield disclosure across staking and lending
ESMA called for clearer disclosures on staking, lending and borrowing in its own September 30 response, alongside tighter rules for crypto promotions, including influencer marketing, and greater transparency on fee structures. ESMA also wants licensing requirements for any company offering access to DeFi protocols, and has flagged the need for better criteria to determine whether a service is genuinely decentralized or controlled by identifiable operators.
The European Banking Authority and European Central Bank echoed similar positions, supporting EU-wide rules for crypto lending, borrowing and staking, according to analysis from law firm Freshfields. The Anti-Money Laundering Authority separately requested a legal definition of DeFi arrangements and clearer methods to identify who exercises control over them.
The divergence reflects a regulatory consensus that DeFi’s opacity creates supervisory gaps and compliance arbitrage, a view at odds with Cardano’s assertion that true decentralization should be exempt.
FATF data shows DeFi oversight enforcement remains fragmented worldwide
As of July 21, 132 of 143 reporting jurisdictions had not applied the Financial Action Task Force’s standards to qualifying DeFi arrangements, and only two of 142 had licensed or registered one.
FATF’s standards apply where someone exercises control or sufficient influence over asset flows. Europe and North America account for roughly 60% of global DeFi transactions, yet enforcement remains patchwork. FATF also linked two April 2026 attacks to North Korea that caused more than $570 million in losses, 76% of all reported virtual-asset hacking losses that year at that time.
The data underscores the supervision gap that drives regulators’ push for tighter EU rules: if decentralized protocols lack identifiable operators subject to compliance regimes, they become vectors for cross-border theft and sanctions evasion that traditional AML frameworks cannot reach.
EU market growth has continued despite MiCA, but clarity may reshape operator geography
Euro-denominated spot trading reached €362 billion in 2025, a 31% increase from the prior year, according to Kaiko. However, a 2026 study found no clear causal link between MiCA milestones and cryptocurrency price movements, suggesting the regulation has not yet materially shifted market structure or liquidity.
Tighter rules on DeFi and staking could increase compliance costs and push firms toward less regulated jurisdictions, yet clearer EU frameworks could also attract institutional capital that currently avoids regulatory uncertainty.
Circle, Aave and more than 50,000 EU citizens have opposed restrictions on stablecoin yields applied to borrowing, lending and staking activities, focusing their concern on the rewards given to participants rather than direct proof-of-stake network participation itself.
The open question for European policymakers is whether to follow Cardano’s substance-over-technology logic, licensing only entities with custody or control, or ESMA’s approach of licensing anyone providing access to DeFi protocols.
The first risks leaving unregulated intermediaries that exercise practical control; the second may push decentralized-finance development away from EU member states and toward jurisdictions with lighter oversight.
The CCS read. We see the institutional risk in this fight: Cardano’s reading would let protocol developers and infrastructure providers operate licensing-free across the EU, even as staking and lending intermediaries face compliance costs. That asymmetry favors on-chain builders over custodial players, which aligns with decentralization goals but not with EU regulators’ apparent preference for identified, supervisable gatekeepers. The outcome will determine whether European crypto firms consolidate around licensed intermediaries or migrate to build in Asia and the United States.
The European Commission has not yet signaled which direction it will move; its current document is a consultation, not a legislative proposal, so it remains unclear whether the EU intends to expand regulatory reach into DeFi or adopt Cardano’s narrower, activity-based interpretation.