Key conclusions

• Europe has moved from developing to enforcing cryptocurrency regulations under MiCA, giving companies clear timelines, licensing pathways and compliance milestones across all EU member states.

• The United States continues to rely on a multi-agency, law enforcement-driven framework, and major questions regarding token classification and market structure await modern federal legislation.

• MiCA’s single license model allows crypto companies to operate across the EU once approved in one country, encouraging companies to base their early expansion strategies in Europe.

• The unclear asset classification in the US makes exchanges more cautious about listings and staking, while MiCA categories reduce legal uncertainty despite higher compliance costs.

At the global level, the two major economic blocs, the US and Europe, are taking very different approaches to regulating cryptocurrencies.

On the one hand, the European Union has moved from developing regulations to actively enforcing. The Markets in Crypto Assets (MiCA) Regulation entered into force in stages. It already covers crypto asset service providers and market abuse, while the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) aims to integrate its short-lived MiCA register into formal regulatory systems.

On the other hand, the regulatory framework in the US is showing some progress but still lacks a single, fully-fledged framework. The regulatory environment remains unclear and has been shaped largely by enforcement actions by multiple agencies.

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) oversee securities, commodities, anti-money laundering (AML), and tax matters, respectively. States also license money transmitters, creating a sophisticated, multi-agency structure.

This article examines how cryptocurrency regulations have changed in Europe and the US, how companies create, list, and scale across both economic blocs, and the secondary effects of evolving cryptocurrency regulations in these regions.

What ‘Europe moving forward’ means: The MiCA framework

MiCA aims to establish uniform market rules across the EU for crypto assets that are not yet covered by existing financial services law. The framework sets out requirements for issuers and service providers of crypto assets, such as exchanges, brokers, custodians and other intermediaries. It also contains provisions aimed at preventing market abuse.

MiCA came into force in stages:

• June 29, 2023: MiCA enters into force upon publication in the Official Journal of the EU.

• June 30, 2024: The MiCA framework for asset-based tokens and e-money tokens comes into effect.

• December 30, 2024: The MiCA regime for crypto asset service providers comes into force.

• Transition window until July 1, 2026: Suppliers operating under national schemes before 30 December 2024 may continue to operate for a constrained period, depending on the choices made by Member States and whether authorization is granted earlier or not.

This regulatory clarity has enabled companies in Europe to plan their timelines, budgets and product development plans around specific regulatory milestones.

One of the biggest structural impacts of MiCA is the introduction of an EU-wide authorization model for crypto asset service providers (CASPs). Companies can obtain a license in one EU country through the competent authority and then offer services across the EU without having to re-license in each market.

MiCA covers several functions, including issuance, maintenance, authorization, disclosure and service provider responsibilities. Europe is also strengthening anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing rules in the context of cryptocurrencies. The EU’s AML package includes the creation of the Anti-Money Laundering Authority (AMLA).

Did you know? MiCA is one of the first comprehensive frameworks to regulate cryptocurrencies uniformly across all 27 EU member states, meaning a license obtained in one country allows companies to serve customers across the EU without having to re-apply in each market.

What “US pauses” means: Work in progress

The pause in the US approach reflects ongoing discussions on how to define regulatory scope. Regulators are still weighing key issues, including when a token qualifies as a security, when it is treated as a commodity and which agency has primary authority over crypto asset activities.

Market structure regulations are still a work in progress

The Digital Assets Market Transparency Act of 2025 aims to establish a federal regulatory structure for digital assets. It classifies them as digital goods or investment contracts. Transactions involving digital goods would be subject to CFTC oversight, while transactions deemed to be investment contracts would not come within the SEC.

If the Clarity Act becomes law, it would introduce requirements for certain brokers and digital asset exchanges to register with the CFTC. It would also establish standards for the custody of client assets, improving transparency and promoting investor protection.

Token classification remains a point of pressure

In slow 2025, Paul Atkins, chairman of the SEC, he said the committee was evaluating a “symbolic taxonomy” based on the Howey investment treaty test. The regulator is examining a crypto asset classification model and potential exemptions as part of broader discussions about market structure.

This process matters because token classification is not just an academic exercise; determines whether platforms must register with the SEC, what disclosures apply and whether certain products become too risky to offer in the U.S. market.

The regulatory approach to stablecoins is becoming clear

The US GENIUS Act establishes a federal framework for payment stablecoins, focusing on issuer oversight, reserve support, and consumer protection. It sets standards for who can issue stablecoins, how reserves should be maintained and disclosed, and how redemption rights should operate.

The law also limits misleading claims about government support and clarifies the supervisory roles of bank and non-bank issuers. It aims to make stablecoins more secure for everyday payments, while supporting regulated innovation.

Did you know? Paul Atkins has been closely involved in crypto policy debates, serving in roles such as co-chair of the Token Alliance. He advocated for clearer token classifications and regulatory exemptions to support blockchain startups.

How companies create, list and scale in the US and Europe

Europe has established clear regulatory guidelines, while the United States is still debating the scope of its cryptocurrency regulation. Crypto companies are reacting in predictable ways.

• Licensing strategies vary: MiCA’s authorization structure encourages companies to do this to choose the EU regulatory base and scale outwards. Companies often obtain licenses in the EU first for regulatory certainty and then consider expanding to the US.

• In the US, listing rules are becoming increasingly conservative: Uncertainty over the classification of crypto assets is making exchanges and brokers more cautious. If it is unclear whether an asset will be treated as a security or commodity, companies may restrict quotes or features such as staking. In contrast, MiCA sets clearer categories and disclosure requirements. While this increases compliance costs, it reduces asset classification risk.

• Stablecoin availability may not be consistent with user expectations: While both Europe and the United States regulate stablecoins, their compliance frameworks are different. Companies’ decisions about building, listing, and scaling influence which stablecoins are prioritized, how reserves are organized, and how distribution partnerships with banks, fintechs, and exchanges are negotiated.

• Companies want one set of rules: Gigantic institutions such as banks, asset managers and public companies prefer environments with stable and predictable rules. A single European rule book could be attractive to crypto companies. While the United States offers deep capital markets, companies still need clarity on asset classification and registration paths.

Did you know? Cryptocurrency licensing often covers not only exchange, but also cryptocurrency custody, intermediation, staking facilitation, and token issuance. This means that companies must design products based on what their specific permit legally allows them to do.

Secondary effects of cryptocurrency regulation in Europe and the USA

As Europe has introduced stable cryptocurrency regulation under MiCA and the United States continues to work on its regulatory scope, the impact goes beyond compliance checklists:

• Liquidity pools can become fragmented: EU-regulated schemes may attract flows from companies seeking a clearer authorization framework. Meanwhile, U.S. facilities can remain detailed but more selective in what they can display and product structure.

• Compliance costs are changing competition: Gigantic companies can spread the costs of meeting MiCA and AML requirements across their entire business. Smaller companies may have to merge, find partners, or exit certain markets due to higher compliance costs.

• More adjustable ramps: The Commodity Futures Trading Commission has outlined steps related to exchange-traded crypto products that can be traded on federally regulated markets.

While these results are not guaranteed, they illustrate how crypto businesses may operate differently in Europe and the US as the regulatory framework evolves.