In a recent statement, the European Parliament said its members would shortly “vote on adopting the regulation on markets in crypto-assets (MiCA).” According to the parliamentary body’s think tank, the envisaged regulations are expected to provide “legal certainty for crypto-assets not covered by existing EU legislation.” A crypto counselor, Paulius Vaitkevicius, said any regulation of crypto is likely to result in more capital and talent coming into the space.
‘Harmonized Rules’ for Crypto-Assets at EU Level
After months of discussions and negotiations which culminated in the June 30 preliminary agreement, the European Parliament (EP) is now set to “vote on adopting the regulation on markets in crypto-assets (MiCA).” The vote is set to take place during the legislative body’s plenary session. European leaders assert that the adoption of MiCA will lead to the creation of “harmonized rules for crypto-assets at [the] E.U. level.”
According to a Nov. 29 briefing by the parliament’s think tank, the harmonized crypto rules are expected to provide “legal certainty for crypto-assets not covered by existing EU legislation.” In the briefing, the EP also argues that the rules will not only enhance the protection of consumers and investors but will also “promote innovation and use of crypto-assets.”
Through MICA, European authorities also hope “to regulate [the] issuance and trading of crypto-assets as well as the management of the underlying assets.”
While European leaders like European Central Bank president Christine Largade are pushing for tougher regulation — MiCA II — some critics of the proposed legislation argue that the envisaged regulations in their current form may stifle innovation.
Legal Clarity Attracts Mature Players
Commenting on the European Union’s drive to regulate cryptocurrencies, Paulius Vaitkevicius, founder and crypto counselor at the law firm VILP Solutions, said the prevailing “Wild West environment” is not helpful to all parties. He also told Bitcoin.com News that without guidelines or regulatory frameworks “and with a number of situations where industry players collapse, we might end up in a situation where we will have only a handful of investors left in the industry.”
Therefore, to stop this from happening the crypto industry needs legal clarity, which according to Vaitkevicius, “bring[s] in more mature players to the industry from both project and investor sides.” Explaining why he is in favor of regulating the industry, Vaitkevicius said:
From my personal experience, such players have been seeking regulations and clarity already for some time and waiting for the right moment to step in properly. With regulations, we will see these firm steps and as a result additional capital and talent coming to the industry space.
Meanwhile, some crypto opponents have said if appropriate regulatory frameworks were already in place, Sam Bankman-Fried’s shenanigans would have been exposed much earlier. However, when asked about the validity of this argument, Vaitkevicius said the opinion that on paper FTX itself was “one of the most regulated players in the industry” undermines this theory. He added:
“Regulation is a good step forward, but [this] needs to be followed by other elements to be functional in real-life situations and achieve the pursued goals.”
Tags in this story
Christine Lagarde, Christine Largade, Crypto regulation, crypto regulatory frameworks, crypto trading, European Central Bank (ECB), European Parliament, ftx, investor protection, MiCA, Paulius Vaitkevicius, Sam Bankman-Fried
What are your thoughts on this story? Let us know what you think in the comments section below.
Terence Zimwara
Image Credits: Shutterstock, Pixabay, Wiki Commons
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only. It is not a direct offer or solicitation of an offer to buy or sell, or a recommendation or endorsement of any products, services, or companies. Bitcoin.com does not provide investment, tax, legal, or accounting advice. Neither the company nor the author is responsible, directly or indirectly, for any damage or loss caused or alleged to be caused by or in connection with the use of or reliance on any content, goods or services mentioned in this article.
