Law & Policy

Another Q for our EU law specialist sistren/brethren: 

Are concerns about the perversion of MiCA to target DeFi well founded?

It was very clear in the legislative process that MiCA was supposed to exclude DeFi, but does the actual text leave cause for concern?

Another Q for our EU law specialist sistren/brethren: 

Are concerns about the perversion of MiCA to target DeFi well founded?

It was very clear in the legislative process that MiCA was supposed to exclude DeFi, but does the actual text leave cause for concern?

https://x.com/RuneKek/status/1775561896235585812?s=20

Swedish web3 lawyer, sharing my thoughts on crypto regulation, especially MiCA, NFTs, DeFi and compliance. $PEPE maxi.

Speaker @ NFT Tallinn, NFT Lugano & more

Legal Counsel @ *redacted*.

Views pwn. Not your air-fryer.

Publishing short fiction on-chain.

Rarely active at LexPunk, Anata, Yearn.

A legal in web3world since 2020 | @nftitalia | @urbe.eth

Rome, Metropolitan City of Rome Capital, Italy

Core Contributor at @beefy | Solicitor at Walker Morris | Commercial, Competition & Technology Law

@sp1t @sull @carlo-web3legal @yagobal curious about your thoughts

Crypto Attorney, Web2 Founder, Farcaster Maxi. Moderator for /law-policy

The short answer is that there is a lot of ambiguity in MiCA. The recital says: "Where crypto-asset services are provided in a fully decentralised manner without any intermediary, they should not fall within the scope of this Regulation." What is "fully decentralised" is still to be determined