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

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

My thoughts: 
1. list of crypto asset services is narrow/focused on centralised acts
2. where immutable smart contracts provide the services, we move away from natural/legal person providing them
3. unlikely that all EU states will apply the regulations in the same way
4. CJEU would need to clarify interpretation if so

MiCA only mentions “decentralization” in the preamble, but it does not actually define it. Various regulatory agencies are tasked with developing the methodology, so we will have to wait and see.

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

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

Concerns about MiCA being used to regulate DeFi may be valid despite intentions to exclude it. Close examination of the text is needed to assess any risks.