Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1126, for firms seeking authorisation to offer asset-referenced tokens (ART)

Executive Summary

This report provides a thorough analysis of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1126, a key legal instrument that serves as the procedural and legal framework for firms seeking authorisation to offer asset-referenced tokens (ARTs) within the European Union. This framework is fundamental for implementing the broader Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA).

The regulation mandates a detailed application process to reduce ambiguity for applicants and NCAs, requiring careful preparation from firms. It creates a precise procedural rhythm to harmonise and simplify EU market entry. However, this clarity doesn't resolve many legal and operational challenges for firms and regulators.

A comparison of the EU’s framework with those of the U.S. and the U.K. regarding stablecoin regulations highlights key differences. The EU's approach is pre-emptive, comprehensive, and harmonised, aiming for legal clarity and market integrity through detailed rules. The U.S. prioritises protecting the dollar's dominance, while the U.K. uses a flexible, phased approach that fits its existing laws.

In conclusion, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1126 is more than a simple procedural text; it is the practical instrument through which the EU's ambitious digital finance strategy is being realised. Success for firms will hinge on adopting a proactive and disciplined approach to compliance. At the same time, regulators will be challenged to resolve lingering definitional ambiguities to ensure consistent enforcement across the bloc.

1. Introduction: The MiCA Framework and the ART Authorisation Process

Overview of MiCA's Objectives and Scope

The Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation, or MiCA, signifies a significant change in how digital assets are regulated. Effective from June 2023, MiCA (Regulation (EU) 2023/1114) creates a unified legal framework for crypto-assets across all 27 EU Member States. Its primary goals are to protect consumers, improve market integrity, and support financial stability, all while encouraging innovation in the fast-growing crypto sector. By establishing a single set of rules, MiCA replaces a patchwork of differing national regulations and offers greater legal certainty for both businesses and consumers.

MiCA classifies crypto-assets into three main types, each subject to different requirements based on their features and risk levels. These types are: asset-referenced tokens (ARTs), e-money tokens (EMTs), and other crypto-assets. Because of their potential to act as a means of exchange and their direct link to real-world assets or fiat currencies, ARTs and EMTs face the strictest rules under the regulation.

The Hierarchical Structure of MiCA's Legal Texts

MiCA itself forms the foundational "Level 1" regulation. After its enactment, the European Commission, in close cooperation with the European Banking Authority (EBA), the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), and other bodies, was tasked with developing a significant number of "Level 2" measures. These measures, which include both Regulatory Technical Standards (RTS) and Implementing Technical Standards (ITS), are designed to provide the detailed rules necessary for the effective implementation of the Level 1 regulation.

The regulatory framework for authorising ARTs exemplifies this hierarchical structure. Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/1125, adopted on the same day as the subject of this report, specifies the information that must be included in an application for authorisation to offer ARTs. It details what an applicant must demonstrate to the competent authority, from internal governance to liquidity management and the suitability of its management team.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1126 complements the delegated act by providing forms, templates, and procedures for submitting information outlined in the Delegated Regulation. Its simultaneous adoption indicates the European Commission's aim to establish a comprehensive, actionable legal framework for certain crypto-assets. This coordinated release prevents delays and ambiguity, ensuring firms have a standardised submission format, contrasting with the piecemeal, multi-regulator approaches in other jurisdictions.

2. Deconstructing Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1126

2.1. The Standardised Application Forms and Templates

The core provision of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1126 is the mandatory use of specific, pre-defined forms and templates for the application for ART authorisation. This effectively prevents firms from submitting their application in a free-form or unstructured format, ensuring that all applicants provide information uniformly, which facilitates supervisory review for competent authorities.

The regulation specifies the use of two key documents. Annexe I is the standard application letter. This acts as the formal declaration from the applicant, confirming that the submission complies with MiCA and this Implementing Regulation. It requires firms to provide detailed contact details for both internal personnel and any professional advisors assisting with the application, as well as a formal attestation that all information provided is "true, accurate, complete, and up-to-date" from the moment of submission until authorisation is granted.

Annexe II is the comprehensive information template. Although the full contents of this annexe are not provided, analysing the broader MiCA framework allows for a reconstruction of its likely components. The template is designed as a highly detailed checklist, promoting a structured approach to compliance. This includes a thorough business plan, details on internal governance and control mechanisms, risk management and operational resilience frameworks, as well as specifics on liquidity management, asset reserves, and redemption rights. The template also functions as a way for firms to provide information on the suitability of their management body and key personnel, their adherence to anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing standards, and a list of intended host Member States for cross-border activities.

The mandatory use of such a detailed template signifies a deliberate shift from a reactive to a proactive regulatory approach. Previously, firms could submit information in different formats, which could result in incomplete applications and lengthy exchanges with NCAs. The standardised template requires firms to organise their entire compliance framework before submission. This proactive structuring functions as a self-assessment and compliance checklist,

transferring the responsibility of organisation from the regulator to the applicant. The outcome is a more streamlined review process for the NCA and, ideally, a more compliant applicant, as they have systematically addressed all regulatory requirements beforehand. The template itself becomes a vital tool for a firm's internal legal and compliance teams.

2.2. The Procedural Requirements

The Implementing Regulation provides essential procedural details for both applicants and regulators, outlining the practical steps for submitting and evaluating an application. National Competent Authorities (NCAs) must clearly state on their websites how applications should be submitted, indicating whether they should be sent via an internet portal, other electronic means, or in paper form for specific original documents, in accordance with national law. Upon receipt, the NCA must promptly send an acknowledgement including the contact details of the person or function responsible for handling the application.

A key procedural step is assessing the application's completeness. An application is only considered "complete" when it includes all the required information as specified by Article 18(2) of the foundational MiCA regulation and the Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/1125, with "the appropriate content and level of detail". The formal authorisation period begins only upon the NCA’s receipt of a complete application. If an application is found to be incomplete, the NCA must immediately notify the applicant, detailing the missing information, the required submission method, and the deadline for submission. This ensures a transparent, two-way communication process.

The procedural rules on completeness, especially the clause concerning "appropriate content and level of detail," act as a powerful tool for regulatory oversight. An application can include all the documents specified in the template. However, if the NCA considers the content of those documents inadequate or insufficiently detailed, it can declare the application incomplete. This prevents firms from submitting generic or superficial responses and enforces a quality standard beyond just quantity. While this discretion is beneficial for regulators in maintaining quality, it could also create friction for firms if different NCAs interpret "appropriate content" slightly differently, indicating potential for ongoing national variations despite EU-wide regulation.

Finally, the regulation explicitly requires that all information provided by the applicant be "true, accurate, complete and up-to-date from the moment of submission... until the moment of granting the authorisation." This is a binding commitment. Any information with a future date, such as a planned launch, must be clearly identified. Firms are legally obliged to notify the authority without delay if such information becomes incorrect.

3. Strategic and Operational Implications for Issuers and National Competent Authorities

3.1. Impact on Firms: From Policy to Practice

The Implementing Regulation translates the high-level legal requirements of MiCA into a detailed, practical compliance process that requires a substantial allocation of internal resources. The mandatory use of standardised templates rules out creative formatting and enforces a careful, structured approach that can optimise internal legal and compliance workflows. For firms aiming to operate across multiple EU Member States, this standardised application package provides a level of cross-border predictability, making their market entry strategy more straightforward.

The regulation's clarity doesn't eliminate firm risks; it increases legal and financial exposure for non-compliance. MiCA sanctions include hefty fines, licence revocation, and personal liability. The Implementing Regulation demands a comprehensive, verifiable record, with firms legally committing to the truthfulness and accuracy of their info. While transparency improves, penalties grow. Templates help regulators spot misrepresentations, and public breaches harm reputation. The Regulation marks a risky, high-stakes environment, prompting crypto firms to seek legal and compliance guidance.

3.2. Impact on National Competent Authorities (NCAs)

The standardised forms and procedures enable NCAs to more easily review and compare applications, leading to a more efficient review process overall. However, the Implementing Regulation, while addressing procedural clarity, does not resolve the more fundamental definitional issues that continue to challenge NCAs in their substantive assessments.

One of the most pressing unresolved issues is the distinction between an ART and a derivative transferable security under MiFID II. The provided documents highlight a significant definitional ambiguity where a token, such as one redeemable for gold or its cash equivalent, could be classified as both an ART and a derivative. Since MiFID II, as a directive, was implemented differently across Member States, what constitutes a derivative can vary by jurisdiction. This legal ambiguity could lead to a situation where the same token is classified as an ART by one NCA but a financial instrument by another, undermining the goal of a single, unified market.

Likewise, the distinction between ARTs and "Other Crypto-assets" (OCAs) remains challenging. The analysis highlights that NCAs initially tended to classify all tokenised real-world assets (RWAs) as ARTs, which may not always be suitable given the "promise of stability" and the strict asset reserve requirements for ARTs. This imposes a significant burden on regulators to interpret the rules in a technologically neutral manner, ensuring that the regulatory framework does not hinder innovation or prompt firms to relocate to third countries.

The procedural clarity provided by the Implementing Regulation does not resolve these fundamental legal uncertainties. It establishes a regulatory "two-track" system: the procedural pathway is simplified and harmonised, but the substantive legal pathway remains complex and fragmented. A firm may successfully comply with the procedural requirements of the Implementing Regulation but then face a lengthy or inconsistent substantive review from its NCA. The issue of this legal ambiguity rests not with the applicant’s forms but with the regulator’s interpretive discretion, which will be a key challenge in achieving pan-EU market consistency.

3.3. Table: MiCA ART Authorisation Procedural Flow

Step	Applicant Action	NCA Action	Relevant Timeline
1. Submission Preparation	Prepares and compiles all required information using the standard form (Annexe I) and comprehensive template (Annexe II).	N/A	Ongoing internal process before submission.
2. Initial Submission	Submits the application to the designated contact point via the method specified by the NCA (e.g., online portal, email, paper).	Acknowledges receipt of the application, including contact details for the person or function handling the case.	An acknowledgement of receipt is sent promptly after the application is submitted.
3. Completeness Assessment	N/A	Reviews the application to ensure it contains all required information with "appropriate content and level of detail".	N/A
4. Incomplete Application	If notified by the NCA, provide the missing information by the specified deadline and method.	Immediately notifies the applicant, specifying the missing information, the required submission method, and the deadline.	The NCA determines the deadline.
5. Deeming Complete	N/A	Informs the applicant that the application is complete and provides the date the full application was received.	Upon receiving all required information, the NCA deems the application complete, and the formal authorisation clock begins.
6. Substantive Review	N/A	Conducts a full, in-depth substantive review of the application's contents and makes a final authorisation decision.	This phase is subject to the timeline for authorisation decisions under the broader MiCA framework.
7. Authorisation Granted	N/A	Notifies the applicant of a successful authorisation and adds the ART issuer to ESMA's public register.	The applicant can proceed with offering the ART to the public in the EU.

 

4. Comparative Analysis: EU vs. US and UK Stablecoin Regulation

4.1. The EU's Comprehensive, Cross-Border Approach

The EU's MiCA framework is built on the idea of providing a single, unified system for a wide variety of crypto-assets, including ARTs, across the entire EU. Its main goal is to protect investors and ensure financial stability within a multi-currency union. Under this framework, ARTs must be supported by a reserve of assets, and their issuers face strict governance, liquidity, and redemption rules. The authorisation process, now standardised by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1126, serves as the gateway to this fully harmonised single market.

4.2. The US GENIUS Act: A Dollar-Centric Framework

The U.S. has shifted from a fragmented approach by enacting the GENIUS Act, the first major federal law to regulate stablecoins. It aims to strengthen U.S. dollar dominance by controlling digital assets pegged to it. The Act mandates full reserve backing of stablecoins with liquid assets like U.S. dollars or Treasury securities. It bans algorithmic stablecoins as payment stablecoins and prohibits paying interest on stablecoin holdings. The law establishes a dual federal-state regulatory framework with three approval pathways: federal, state, and foreign, including extraterritorial jurisdiction over foreign issuers targeting the U.S.

4.3. The UK's Phased, Activity-Based Regulation

Compared to the EU and the U.S., the UK adopts a cautious, phased approach to crypto regulation, integrating stablecoins into its existing financial framework rather than creating a new one. Its activity-based strategy focuses on what firms do, such as issuing stablecoins or operating trading platforms, rather than their legal classification. This enables the UK to respond to EU and US developments, aiming for a more adaptable and responsive framework than Mica. Built into the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA 2000), it provides a familiar route for traditional financial institutions to enter crypto.

4.4. Key Distinctions and Strategic Takeaways

The EU's Implementing Regulation reflects a trade-off: a more prescriptive process for a harmonised, legally precise single market. Its regulation and ITS help achieve complete harmonisation, allowing firms in one Member State to "passport' services with predictability, more than in the U.S. federal system. This standardisation helps turn the EU's digital single market goals into law. Meanwhile, the U.S. and UK are amending less unified, fragmented systems, risking less market integration.

Parameter	EU (MiCA)	US (GENIUS Act)	UK (Phased Approach)
Framework Name	Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA)	Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins Act (GENIUS Act)	Phased Approach, integrated into existing law
Legal Basis	Directly applicable regulation across all Member States	Federal law with a dual federal-state framework	Integration into existing financial law (e.g., FSMA 2000)
Primary Focus	Comprehensive, cross-market investor protection and financial stability	Reinforce U.S. dollar dominance in the digital space	Agile, principles-based regulation to foster innovation
Regulatory Body	EBA, ESMA, and National Competent Authorities (NCAs)	OCC, Federal Reserve, U.S. Treasury, State Regulators	Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), Bank of England (BoE), Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA)
Reserve Requirements	Mandated, with details specified by delegated acts and implementing standards	Strict 1:1 backing with liquid assets (e.g., USD, short-term Treasuries) in segregated accounts	To be determined via forthcoming policy statements and consultations
Market Entry	Single, harmonised authorisation with "passporting" rights across the bloc	Multiple tracks for authorisation: federal, state, and foreign	Phased, activity-based authorisation via existing regulatory channels
Key Prohibitions	No interest payments on e-money tokens (EMTs)	Prohibits interest payments and classifies algorithmic stablecoins as non-payment stablecoins	Prohibitions to be determined based on consultations; aims for flexibility

 

5. Conclusions and Outlook

The implementation of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1126 marks a crucial advance in the development of the European crypto-asset market. By translating MiCA’s high-level requirements into a clear, enforceable procedural guide, the regulation strengthens the EU's role as a global leader in comprehensive digital asset regulation. The strategic choice to publish the procedural and substantive legal texts together for ART authorisation emphasises the EU’s dedication to providing a straightforward path to compliance for the most systemically essential crypto-assets.

For firms, regulation demands increased operational rigour. Using standardised templates is challenging but also an opportunity, serving as a project plan for legal and compliance teams. Non—compliance risks include fines, licence loss, and liability, so firms should see the application process as a vital self-assessment. Engaging legal and compliance advisors proactively is essential for success.

Regulators now face the challenge of ensuring rules are consistently implemented, despite remaining definitional ambiguities. NCAs and bodies like ESMA must provide clear guidance on issues like the difference between ARTs and financial instruments to prevent market confusion and regulatory arbitrage across Member States, which is crucial for achieving a truly harmonised single market.

The global stablecoin regulatory landscape features three main approaches: the EU's comprehensive framework, the U.S.'s dollar-centric system, and the UK's phased, activity-based model. The EU's detailed, though sometimes seen as bureaucratic, approach ensures a level playing field and eases cross-border operations. This highlights different philosophies: the EU is building a new unified system, while the U.S. and the UK are adapting existing, fragmented ones. The future regulation race will balance innovation and stability, with these regimes serving as global benchmarks.

Here are some suggested hashtags to accompany your post:

#MiCA #CryptoRegulation #DigitalAssets #Fintech #Blockchain #ARTs #Stablecoins #EULaw #FinancialServices #Compliance #Regtech #LegalTech #GENIUSAct #UKRegulation