# Multi-Issuance of Stablecoins under MiCAR > This article explains the EU-law debate on stablecoin multi-issuance, third-country risks and supervision under MiCAR. Source: https://www.mtrlegal.com/en/multi-issuance-of-stablecoins-under-micar/ · Language: en · Updated: 2026-10-21 --- ## Differing views on multi-issuance under MiCAR The multiple issuance of stablecoins involving issuers from third countries, often referred to as multi-issuance, is assessed differently within the European Union. There is broad agreement that such structures may create significant risks for users, supervision and financial stability. However, it is disputed whether the [Regulation on Markets in Crypto-Assets](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/DE/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32023R1114) (Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation, MiCAR) already permits these models today and contains sufficient response mechanisms, or whether an express amendment to the regulatory framework is required. At its core, the issue concerns a conflict of objectives. On the one hand, the question arises whether reserves held outside the Union are reliably available in stress situations. On the other hand, it is argued that MiCAR is in international competition with legal systems that permit or expressly enable such models. The discussion has gained additional significance through several statements by European institutions. The [European Systemic Risk Board](https://www.esrb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/recommendations/esrb.recommendation251020.de.pdf) (ESRB) initiated an EU-wide examination of third-country multi-issuer stablecoins with its recommendation of 25 September 2025, published on 20 October 2025 under reference ESRB/2025/9 (C/2025/6342). The recommendation was published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 21 November 2025. ## Concept and forms of multi-issuance ### No express definition in MiCAR MiCAR does not contain a legal definition of multi-issuance. In practice and in legal literature, various descriptions are used, but they overlap in essential respects. Under a broad understanding, multi-issuance exists where stablecoins are issued jointly by an entity in the Union and an entity in a third country. The entity in the Union may be liable for the redemption of all jointly issued tokens without holding all reserves required to fulfil these global obligations within the Union. The European Systemic Risk Board describes multi-issuance in the third-country context more specifically as a model in which an EU entity and a third-country entity issue fungible stablecoins that are technically and legally indistinguishable. In this context, fungibility means that users may regard the tokens as equivalent regardless of which entity originally issued them. ### Control relationships and group structures Another approach focuses on the same stablecoin being issued in several jurisdictions by different legal persons that are subject to the same controlling interests. Examples cited include constellations in which a European subsidiary and a US parent company or an affiliated company issue the same token. Even where the reserves of such stablecoins may be divided between different jurisdictions, observed market cases often point out that the EU entity is held or controlled by a third-country entity. This raises questions regarding supervision, liquidity management and actual access to reserves. ## Requirements for stablecoin issuers in the Union Stablecoins are considered stable in value because they are linked to a reference value. Tokens whose value stability is intended to be maintained by reference to an official currency constitute e-money tokens under Art. 3(1) No. 7 MiCAR. Anyone wishing to offer e-money tokens to the public in the European Union or to seek their admission to trading must generally be authorised as a credit institution or an electronic money institution. In addition, a published white paper must be submitted to the competent authority, Art. 48(1) subparagraph 1 MiCAR. With the issuer’s consent, other persons may also offer e-money tokens to the public or seek admission to trading, provided that they comply in particular with the requirements concerning the prohibition of interest under Art. 50 MiCAR and marketing communications under Art. 53 MiCAR. MiCAR provides for specific requirements for safeguarding the funds received. Under Art. 54 point (a) MiCAR, 30 percent of the funds received must always be deposited in separate accounts with credit institutions. The remaining funds must, under Art. 54 point (b) MiCAR, be invested in secure, low-risk assets that qualify as highly liquid financial instruments with minimal market, credit and concentration risk and are denominated in the same official currency as the e-money token. ## Global significance of stablecoins and regulatory competition ### Stablecoins as a cross-border phenomenon Stablecoins have developed from a niche product into a globally used form of digital money. In legal and economic literature, their significance is explained in particular by the fact that they combine the programmability of digital tokens with the relative stability of fiat currencies, especially the US dollar. Against this background, it is debated whether privately issued digital dollars create a new link between global demand for liquidity and US government debt. Under the US GENIUS Act, stablecoins are to be fully backed by US Treasury bills. From this, the emergence of a so-called global safe asset channel is derived, through which global liquidity needs and shocks may affect the market for US government bonds. It is precisely the cross-border character that makes multi-issuance challenging for every jurisdiction involved. Risks and effects may arise outside a jurisdiction’s own territorial scope but nevertheless have an impact within the Union. ### Territorial scope of MiCAR Under Art. 2(1) MiCAR, MiCAR applies to natural and legal persons as well as certain other persons that are engaged in the issuance, public offering or admission to trading of crypto-assets in the Union or that provide services related to crypto-assets. For an offer “in the Union”, investors in the Union must be specifically targeted. The decisive factor is whether potential investors who have their habitual residence or registered office in the Union are addressed. The public offering of asset-referenced tokens or e-money tokens in the Union may also result in foreign issuers falling within the scope of MiCAR. This is consistent with MiCAR’s objective of opening the crypto market externally while at the same time protecting financial stability and users in the Union. The contrary view, according to which issuers under Titles III and IV of MiCAR could only be undertakings established in the Union, is therefore not convincing. It is true that there are practical limits to supervision vis-à-vis third countries. However, it does not necessarily follow that the substantive or territorial scope of MiCAR is excluded from the outset. ## Limited supervisory options vis-à-vis third countries ### Actual reach of EU supervision The practical supervisory reach of MiCAR remains limited where third-country elements are involved. EU supervisory authorities do not automatically have control over assets or business activities outside the Union. Nevertheless, they may be confronted with redemption requests concerning tokens that were originally issued by third-country issuers. Legal literature also derives reputational risks for European supervisory authorities from this. Multi-issuance could create a precedent that enables third-country issuers to access the EU internal market without fulfilling all regulatory obligations in the Union. This could make the Union vulnerable to international regulatory arbitrage. Conversely, it is argued that euro stablecoins or stablecoins in another Member State currency are subject to Union law even if they are issued exclusively in third countries. This is based on Art. 48(2) sentence 2 MiCAR, according to which e-money tokens that reference an official currency of a Member State are deemed to be offered to the public in the Union. ### Third-country currencies and offerings in the Union According to one view, an e-money token that does not reference a Member State currency but a third-country currency may also be deemed to be offered to the public in the Union. The decisive factor may be whether the offer is technically accessible and linguistically comprehensible to potential investors in the Union. For multi-issuance, this means that the application of MiCAR need not be excluded solely because of a lack of territorial nexus. In each individual case, it must be assessed whether the presentation, language, technical availability and identifiable cross-border links actually address users in the Union. ## Multi-issuance as a stress test for MiCAR ### Tension between competition and protective function Multi-issuance is not merely a structural business decision by internationally active issuers. The model also shows whether MiCAR is robust in a global environment with differing crypto regimes. On the one hand, MiCAR is intended to ensure European investor protection, market integrity and financial stability. On the other hand, it should not prevent competition with other jurisdictions through blanket prohibitions if differentiated rules might suffice. The ESRB has pointed out that some national competent authorities consider multi-issuer systems involving third countries to be permissible under MiCAR, while others regard them as impermissible. This divergence runs counter to the objective of uniform requirements within the Union. ### USD stablecoins with and without multi-issuance Among currently available USD stablecoins, a distinction must be made between those with multi-issuance and those without multi-issuance. According to the ESRB, in particular USDC by Circle and USDG of another US stablecoin issuer are described as leading USD-denominated stablecoins within controversial multi-issuance structures. For 15 September 2025, in connection with the multi-issuance of Circle and U.S. Circle LLC, a global market capitalisation of USD 73.1 billion was cited, as well as a global market capitalisation of USD 592 million for the European and Singaporean entities of this issuer. Both were classified as e-money tokens authorised under MiCAR. These must be distinguished from stablecoins that are not MiCAR-compliant and do not involve multi-issuance, such as USDT issued by Tether outside the Union. In the ESRB’s assessment, such a stablecoin may also create risks for the financial stability of the Union because it is used by EU investors and may have significant effects on crypto markets, stablecoin issuers and trading venues that depend on corresponding trading pairs. ## Risks of multi-issuance ### Redemption rights and availability of reserves A central risk lies in the possible divergence between redemption obligations and available reserves. Under MiCAR, holders of e-money tokens in the Union may redeem them at any time, free of charge, at par value. Third-country regulatory frameworks may deviate from this, for example through fees, delays or other redemption conditions. This may create an incentive to assert redemption rights in the jurisdiction that offers the strongest protection. If redemptions are concentrated in the Union while reserves are held in third countries or by other issuers, a discrepancy may arise between obligations and available funds. In this context, the ECB has pointed out that EU issuers in multi-issuance structures could potentially receive redemption requests from token holders in third countries. If insufficient reserves are available in the Union, it might be expected that a third-country entity transfers assets to the EU reserves. However, MiCAR does not expressly lay down such an expectation. ### Supervisory arbitrage and fragmentation Multi-issuance may also facilitate supervisory arbitrage. Issuers could concentrate reserves where requirements are less stringent. Users could assert redemption rights where the legal system appears more favourable to them. Legal literature therefore calls for the risks of forum shopping to be monitored and limited in order to preserve the regulatory integrity and uniformity of MiCAR. The Deutsche Bundesbank (German Federal Bank) has quantified existing multi-issuance stablecoins in the billions and referred to a regulatory gap that the European Union must close. ## Positions of European institutions ### ECB and ESCB The European Central Bank (ECB) takes a cautious view of multi-issuance with a third-country nexus. In its view, a generous interpretation of MiCAR may enable such models. At the same time, this could give third-country issuers advantages over potential EU issuers if third-country regulatory frameworks do not mirror core MiCAR requirements. On the basis of a non-paper on EU and third-country multi-issuance published on the website of the Council of the European Union, the ECB has introduced safeguards into the discussion. These include in particular: - a framework for assessing the equivalence of stablecoin regimes in third countries, - reciprocity arrangements for stablecoins issued in the Union and denominated in euros or other EU currencies, - arrangements to avoid legal obstacles to the transfer of assets in recovery or resolution scenarios, - caps and increased supervisory requirements when certain thresholds are met. The European System of Central Banks (ESCB) submitted its consultation response on 22 September 2026. It comprises 57 pages and contains a separate chapter on global stablecoins and multi-issuer systems. The ESCB supports a ban on such systems, while at the same time calling for the fixed bank deposit ratio for stablecoin reserves of 30 percent, or 60 percent for systemic issuers, to be removed. ### ESRB recommendation and “Plan B” In its Recommendation A, the ESRB aimed to establish that third-country multi-issuer stablecoin systems are impermissible in the Union. Primarily, it calls for clarification by the European Commission that stablecoins issued in the EU must not be fungible with stablecoins issued outside the EU. If the Commission does not share this view, the ESRB provides for further safeguards. This alternative approach is described as “Plan B” and includes measures that would have to be implemented partly by 2026 and partly by 2027. Recommendations B to J concern, among other things, equivalence and cooperation issues, obstacles to the mobility of reserves, significance criteria, supervisory requirements, assessment criteria for cross-border transactions, data access and additional white paper content. ### EBA and European Commission The European Banking Authority (EBA) has formally asked the Commission to clarify whether multi-issuance stablecoins are permissible at all under EU crypto law. In its response of 24 September 2026 on the MiCA review, the EBA calls for a tightening of the framework specifically for risks arising from multi-issuer stablecoin systems. The EBA states that MiCAR provisions expressly address multi-issuance by EU entities, but do not capture third-country multi-issuer systems in the same way. In mid-October 2026, the EBA classified USDC as the first significant e-money token under MiCAR, triggering dual supervision by French and European authorities. On 20 May 2026, the European Commission launched a targeted consultation on the MiCA review, which ran until 31 August 2026. In this consultation, it was acknowledged for the first time that multi-issuance structures are currently not prohibited by MiCAR for any category of stablecoin. At the same time, the Commission asked about additional safeguards for stress scenarios. Publicly, the view was also expressed that the existing EU rules already sufficiently cover stablecoin risks and that fundamental changes are not required. ### European Parliament and market positions On 9 July 2026, the European Parliament adopted a report on digital assets by 390 votes to 86 and, in it, opposed a ban on multi-issuance. As a result, there is no uniform line in the institutional debate. Market participants have also taken positions. In early October 2026, Circle argued in its consultation response in favour of maintaining the multi-issuance model and proposed a recognition regime for foreign issuers involving the EBA. According to Circle, of the 25 largest stablecoins by market capitalisation, only three are MiCA-regulated: USDC, USDG and EURC. ## MiCAR instruments for capturing risks ### Significant asset-referenced tokens and e-money tokens MiCAR already contains instruments that can capture the risks of large and internationally interconnected tokens. Art. 43 MiCAR governs the classification of asset-referenced tokens as significant. For e-money tokens, Art. 56 MiCAR refers to corresponding criteria. Criteria of particular relevance include: - size of the reserve of assets, - importance at international level, - interconnectedness with the financial system, - scale of use and number of transactions, - risks to financial stability and payment systems. For tokens issued by several issuers, the data of these issuers are aggregated for the significance assessment, Art. 43(3) and Art. 56(2) MiCAR. Following a classification as significant, certain supervisory powers are transferred to the European Banking Authority. ### Additional obligations in the event of significance Additional obligations apply to issuers of significant asset-referenced tokens and significant e-money tokens. These include, among other things, own funds requirements, liquidity stress tests and requirements concerning remuneration policies. Irrespective of a classification as significant, thresholds and caps for large tokens may play a role. If certain limits are exceeded, the competent authority may, under certain conditions, order measures up to and including the cessation of issuance. Where there are several issuers of the same token, aggregated data must also be taken into account in this respect. However, this set of instruments does not expressly address all risks specific to multi-issuance. In particular, supervisory arbitrage, reserves held in third countries and possible shifts in redemption claims are not expressly regulated in every conceivable constellation. ## Need to amend MiCAR ### Arguments in favour of an express amendment In favour of amending MiCAR, it is argued that multi-issuance with a third-country nexus has not yet been clearly and conclusively regulated. In the ECB’s view, a merely generous interpretation could lead to distortions of competition in favour of third-country issuers. It is also pointed out that recitals cannot create independent rights and obligations. MiCAR distinguishes between asset-referenced tokens and e-money tokens. Rules formulated for one type of token therefore cannot readily be transferred to the other type of token unless this is expressly provided for. Against this background, more precise regulation within MiCAR itself is being considered in the longer term. It is also being discussed whether the ECB should be given a stronger and more binding role in assessing risks to financial stability. ### Arguments against a fundamental amendment By contrast, it is argued that MiCAR may already contain a coherent basis for multi-issuance, provided it is interpreted systematically and teleologically. Reference is made to cross-border regulatory approaches, reserve requirements and aggregated supervisory mechanisms. According to this view, targeted operational measures could be sufficient to address the risks identified by the ECB. A general ban could push European users towards offshore alternatives to which MiCAR is precisely not applicable. This approach emphasises the competitiveness of the Union and the importance of a European stablecoin infrastructure. Nevertheless, even on this basis, a more precise and uniform application of the MiCAR framework remains necessary in order to avoid divergent assessments by national authorities. ## Assessment and outlook Multi-issuance of stablecoins does not necessarily have to be answered with a ban. However, due to the risks to financial stability, supervisory coherence and redemption capacity, uniform treatment within the European Union is required. MiCAR already contains provisions that can be applied to multi-issuance structures. In particular, the rules on significant asset-referenced tokens and e-money tokens with international interconnections provide points of reference. However, they do not expressly capture all specific risks of such models and leave scope for assessment and discretion. In the short term, binding clarification by the European Commission may be considered, in particular regarding the criteria of Art. 43 MiCAR for internationally interconnected tokens. In the longer term, there are strong arguments in favour of expressly regulating multi-issuance as part of a MiCAR reform in order to provide supervisors, market participants and users with greater legal certainty. ## Capital markets law advice on stablecoins and MiCAR Stablecoin structures, token issuances and MiCAR requirements regularly raise issues of capital markets, banking and regulatory law. For companies, investors and high-net-worth individuals, careful classification of the specific structure may be decisive, particularly in cross-border models and at regulatory interfaces. MTR Legal Rechtsanwälte advises clients on corresponding matters in the field of [legal advice in capital markets law](https://www.mtrlegal.com/rechtsberatung/kapitalmarktrecht/).