France’s finance ministry and its three financial regulators want EU law to stop licensed crypto companies from serving stablecoins outside MiCA, and to condition coins issued both in the EU and outside it. The French Treasury (Direction générale du Trésor), the AMF (Autorité des marchés financiers), the Banque de France and the ACPR (the French Prudential Supervisory and Resolution Authority) published the position in Paris on 21 October 2026, according to their joint release.

These proposals answer the European Commission’s consultation on a review of MiCA. The Commission has not adopted them. Nothing changes for users today.

A written ban on non-MiCA stablecoins

The response would bar an EU-licensed crypto company from services on a stablecoin outside MiCA.

The response says an e-money token tied to an EU currency now counts as offered in the Union, wherever it was created. The full regime can catch a foreign issuer that never sells the token to people in the Union. Compliance costs may push those issuers off the euro. Enforcement is hard with no EU base.

MiCA would cover that token only if it is offered to people in the Union, admitted to trading there, or handled by an EU crypto company.

France also wants the bar to cover other crypto-assets that miss MiCA, including unauthorised stablecoins of either kind and assets issued outside the EU.

The same token issued in two places

Multi-issuance means one interchangeable coin, issued in the EU and in another country by companies in one group, according to the full response. Global liquidity would stay open.

Coins from the two issuers can be swapped freely, while MiCA allows redemption with no conditions. Under stress, a non-EU holder may redeem at the EU issuer. Thin reserves in the Union can leave that company short of cash, and France has seen reserves skewed against it. A contract to move reserves may fail if the foreign side blocks it.

France would still allow the setup only with these guards. Without them, they say it should be avoided.

An EU issuer could join only a foreign issuer from a country the Commission finds equivalent, judged by results, since no foreign rulebook will match MiCA line for line. Supervisors would agree to share information, inspect on site and help enforce. Foreign rules would have to force reserve rebalancing and bar a solo halt unless both sides agree, or supply another tool such as a larger reserve. Reserve contents, safekeeping, cash-out, disclosure and an interest ban would have to be comparable.

From the start the coin would be tagged significant, and the EBA would supervise the EU issuer. PTYcoin has covered the first significant e-money token. Both supervisors would jointly approve the reserve-transfer mechanism. Liquidity checks could make the EBA require extra assets. The EU issuer would redeem only for EU holders.

A single issuer needs no country limit, because the reserve covers every coin. When issuance is split, a holder abroad could not cash foreign-created coins at the EU company if that foreign issuer looks weak. A “European holder” would be set by checks such as usual home or tax residence in the Union, covering people, companies and a middleman who took full ownership. The limit may work poorly for a coin kept in a private wallet.

Equivalence would open joint creation with an EU-licensed partner. A coin created only abroad would stay closed to distribution in the Union. EU issuers, euro e-money tokens included, would need the same opening the other way. Issuance caps would stay, and the ECB and the EBA would keep their powers. If access or the foreign rules went backward, the finding would be reviewed and then withdrawn.

Rewards paid by an exchange

The ban on the issuer paying interest, or pay that works like interest, should stay for e-money tokens and, if that category remains, for asset-referenced tokens. Issuer pay could make the coin resemble an investment. At scale it could also pull deposits from banks. France cites an ECB Financial Stability Review that puts the stablecoin market above USD 280 billion.

Rewards from a crypto company, a platform or a fund should come under conditions: pay for holding or using an e-money token, a fund’s return on those tokens, or a return from settlement. France cites the U.S. GENIUS Act, which bars issuer interest and leaves other parties’ rewards in place. MiCA would set the conditions and the EBA would specify them: clear terms, no pledged fixed yield, no savings pitch, and a watch on bank deposits.

Euro stablecoins, large platforms and DeFi

France supports euro e-money tokens and tokenised bank deposits, especially for cross-border payments and tokenised finance. A tokenised deposit is an ordinary bank deposit on a shared ledger, and should stay regulated as a deposit. MiCA excludes deposits, but EU law has no shared definition, so countries may disagree. Wholesale central bank money, including digital form, would remain the safest asset for settling trades in financial assets.

ESMA should have a larger role over significant crypto companies and over the crypto business of crypto-conglomerates. Capital rules for those companies should move closer to MiFID rules for investment companies. The significant test should reach past one or two companies, including by cutting the active-user threshold a long way.

Decentralised finance would get proportionate duties. A crypto company linking clients to a protocol no one party controls would have to check it. Protocols and their contracts would be certified for some services MiCA names, without blocking entrants or replacing a licence where an identifiable person or group is in control. Staking, which the release calls putting crypto-assets aside for a reward, needs clearer rules, as do lending and borrowing. Clients can lose coins or mistake the reward for protected savings. Lending and borrowing would get duties scaled to size, with no new licence.

For a customer of an EU exchange, the proposals could turn ESMA’s guidance on non-MiCA stablecoins into a ban in the law, and could change rewards on a stablecoin balance. For a holder of a coin issued in several places, the EU issuer’s duty to pay out could stop at holders in the EU. Only if the EU adopts the text would any of this bind.

This article is not investment advice.