MiCA Architect Urges EU to Focus on Tokenization, Not DeFi Rules

The European Union is signaling a regulatory shift in its digital assets regime, prioritizing a broad framework that covers real-world assets and tokenization rather than extending MiCA to govern decentralized finance (DeFi). An adviser to the European Commission indicated that a wider, asset-backed regulatory lens could be more effective for the bloc, even as MiCA itself remains in play through a formal review process.

In May, the European Commission opened a public consultation on MiCA, inviting feedback through August 31 as policymakers weigh the future direction of the bloc’s crypto rules. The review aims to gather input on whether a second version of MiCA is warranted and how gaps in the current regime should be addressed.

Peter Kerstens, one of MiCA’s principal architects, told Cointelegraph at the WAIB Summit Monaco 2026 that he does not believe MiCA is inherently outdated, but he stressed the value of the ongoing consultation in shaping the next regulatory steps. “That’s my personal opinion, but it does not matter. That’s why we have this consultation,” he said. Kerstens emphasized that the Commission intends to harness stakeholder feedback to inform future policy choices.

The MiCA framework is approaching a critical deadline: the transitional period ends on July 1, after which crypto asset service providers must secure a MiCA license to continue serving EU clients or risk halting operations within the bloc.

Key takeaways

• The EU’s MiCA review is steering attention toward a broader digital asset framework that includes tokenization of real-world assets rather than focusing solely on DeFi under MiCA.
• Regulating DeFi directly remains legally and technically challenging, as regulators must address entities and people rather than networks or protocols themselves.
• The July 1 MiCA transitional deadline looms for license applicants and service providers, underscoring the urgency of regulatory clearance for EU activities.
• Recent references to DAOs in EU discourse have raised questions about whether governance structures are sufficiently decentralized to fall outside MiCA, a topic that remains contested among policymakers and researchers.
• The EU’s consultation process continues through August, with the potential to reshape licensing, supervision, and the regulatory perimeter for tokenized assets and on-chain representations of real-world assets.

MiCA review and the pivot toward asset tokenization

The European Commission’s public consultation places emphasis on a spectrum of emerging considerations beyond DeFi itself. While DeFi was identified as an emerging risk area in the consultation materials, sector experts argue that the current MiCA scope largely excludes DeFi protocols from direct regulation. Kerstens underscored this point by noting the difficulty of regulating a decentralized network without a clear legal persona to hold accountable for compliance or penalties. He argued that, under existing legal doctrines, networks themselves cannot be regulated in the same way as identifiable entities, suggesting that any effective approach to DeFi would require a new legal construct that can address non-entity actors and governance structures.

In practice, the EU’s regulatory attention could tilt toward how tokenized assets and on-chain representations of traditional instruments fit within a consistent cross-border framework. A broader asset-tokenization regime could harmonize rights, obligations, disclosures, and enforcement across member states, potentially impacting tokenized securities, asset-backed stablecoins, and related services. The conversation reflects a desire to balance enabling innovation with robust oversight, a theme that has grown more pronounced as banks and fintechs increasingly integrate tokenized products and on-chain collateral into traditional financial rails.

DeFi governance and regulatory feasibility: a policy debate

The regulatory challenge of DeFi pivots on fundamental questions: who should bear responsibility for DeFi activities, and what legal doctrines are necessary to regulate decentralized networks? Kerstens’ remarks highlight the EU’s aversion to prescribing rules for protocols that lack a centralized governance or corporate form. The debate touches on the broader policy objective of maintaining a uniform EU standard while avoiding stifling innovation in a space characterized by rapid experimentation and dispersed participant bases.

Observers note that a blanket extension of MiCA to DeFi could require a rethinking of the jurisdictional and enforceability dimensions of crypto activity, particularly as smart-contract-enabled services operate across borders with minimal direct exposure to traditional corporate structures. The Commission’s engagement with stakeholders during the consultation will help determine whether future policy instruments should target specific activities, actor types, or new governance models that can be treated within an updated regulatory perimeter.

DAO governance and MiCA scope: ECB evidence and regulatory implications

The policy discourse around decentralization is not confined to DeFi protocols alone. Earlier in the year, a European Central Bank working paper examined whether DAOs — and the governance they embody — are sufficiently decentralized to remain outside MiCA’s jurisdiction. The discussion drew attention to governance patterns within several prominent protocols, including Aave, MakerDAO, Ampleforth, and Uniswap, where a small cohort of major token holders held significant sway over protocol decisions. Based on holdings snapshots from late 2022 and mid-2023, the paper reported that the top 100 governance token holders controlled more than 80% of the supply in each case, raising questions about whether such structures are truly “fully decentralized.” As Cointelegraph noted in coverage of the ECB analysis, these findings complicate the assumption that certain protocols can or should operate wholly outside MiCA’s regulatory ambit.

The ECB work highlights a broader policy tension: the more governance appears concentrated in a few hands, the more regulators may view oversight as necessary to ensure investor protection, market integrity, and systemic resilience. Whether these observations will trigger a redefinition of MiCA’s scope or prompt targeted regulatory addenda remains a live question as the EU consolidates its approach to digital assets with a view toward harmonized cross-border enforcement and supervision.

Closing perspective

As the MiCA review progresses, the EU appears inclined to favor a cohesive, asset-centric regulatory architecture that can accommodate tokenization and real-world assets while preserving robust oversight. The coming months will reveal how the Commission reconciles stakeholder input with broader policy objectives, including licensing clarity, AML/KYC compliance, and cross-border supervisory cooperation. The public consultation remains open through August 31, after which policymakers will chart the next phases of Europe’s digital asset regime and its implications for institutions, exchanges, banks, and investors.