MiCA, EMTs and PSD2: What Changes for CASPs After March 2, 2026

March 2 and the Payment Question Behind EMTs

March 2, 2026 does not introduce a new rule. It closes a transitional one.

From this date, crypto-asset service providers interacting with electronic money tokens in ways that resemble payment activity can no longer rely on interpretative flexibility. The relationship between MiCA and the payments framework moves from debate to operational reality.

To understand why this moment matters, it helps to go back to where the tension began.

Article 48(2): How EMTs Entered the Payments Framework

MiCA made an early conceptual choice about electronic money tokens. Article 48(2) provides that e-money tokens are deemed to be electronic money. At first glance, this looked like a matter of classification. In practice, it created a bridge into another regulatory system.

Once EMTs are treated as electronic money, they are no longer only crypto-assets regulated by MiCA. Electronic money falls within the definition of funds under PSD2. Therefore, they also enter the functional perimeter of payments law.

This immediately raised a question for the industry. If EMTs are funds, does activity involving them trigger PSD authorisation? And if so, does this create a dual licensing expectation for CASPs providing EMT-related services?

These concerns surfaced in discussions with European authorities and in exchanges between the Commission, supervisors and market participants.

The European Commission’s letter to the EBA crystallised the issue. It recognised explicitly that EMTs carry a dual nature: they are crypto-assets under MiCA and funds within the meaning of PSD2.

Where CASPs provide payment services using EMTs, the implication is clear. They must either:

• obtain authorisation as a payment service provider, or
• operate through one that does

At the same time, the Commission acknowledged that applying PSD requirements across all EMT use cases could create disproportionate burdens.

It invited the EBA to consider supervisory flexibility through a No-Action approach.

Functional Boundary: When EMT Activity Becomes a Payment Service

A key element of the debate was not whether EMTs are electronic money, it was when their use becomes a payment service. Authorities drew a distinction between activity involving EMTs as trading instruments and activity involving EMTs as means of transfer.

Services more likely to fall within PSD include:

• executing EMT transfers on behalf of clients
• custody arrangements that enable third-party transfers
• wallets functioning in practice as payment accounts

Crucially, authorities recognised that EMTs can circulate in the market without functioning as payment instruments. Not every service involving EMTs amounts to the execution of a payment transaction. In particular, activities where EMTs are treated as trading assets, rather than as instruments for transferring value between payer and payee, do not typically fall within the scope of PSD.

For example, where a CASP exchanges EMTs for funds or for other crypto-assets in its own name, acting as buyer or seller rather than as intermediary between two parties, the activity resembles market exchange rather than payment execution.

Similarly, where EMTs are used primarily for investment or trading purposes, without facilitating transfers between third parties, the service remains within the crypto-asset perimeter.

The distinction is therefore not based on the token itself, but on the role played by the provider. An EMT can function as:

• a trading instrument
• a settlement asset, or
• a means of payment

Only in the latter case does the PSD framework attach.

Structural Consequence: Why Payment Authorisation May Be Required

Where an EMT-related activity qualifies as a payment service, MiCA alone is no longer sufficient. The provider must operate within the payments framework.

This means either:

• obtaining authorisation as a payment institution or electronic money institution, or
• partnering with an authorised PSP

Supervisory Timeline: The EBA No-Action Period and the Transitional Window

The EBA’s June 2025 No-Action Opinion acknowledged that some EMT-related services fall within PSD2 while creating a temporary alignment window.

The Opinion recognised that certain activities, particularly where EMTs are transferred on behalf of clients or held in structures enabling third-party transfers, may qualify as payment services.

But rather than requiring immediate PSD authorisation across the market, it allowed a transitional period until 2 March 2026. This was intended to preserve continuity while firms assessed their regulatory positioning and prepared for authorisation where necessary.

During this period, CASPs already providing EMT-related services could continue operating while preparing for PSD alignment. More than 100 CASPs approached authorities or submitted authorisation applications during this time.

PSD3 and PSR: Why the Transitional Approach Was Needed

Importantly, this supervisory accommodation did not emerge in isolation. The treatment of EMTs from a payments perspective is already under discussion within the broader reform of the EU payments framework through PSD3 and the Payment Services Regulation (PSR).

Both the European Parliament and the Council have considered how EMT-related activity should be positioned within future payment legislation. At the same time, the Commission acknowledged that diverging interpretations of the MiCA–PSD interaction had already begun to emerge across Member States.

The longer-term solution could therefore take different forms.

It may emerge through adjustments to the payments framework under PSD3 and PSR. Alternatively, it could involve clarifications or refinements to the treatment of EMT-related services within the MiCA architecture itself.

However, PSD3 and PSR remain some years away from application. The Commission therefore recognised that a regulatory gap existed between MiCA’s entry into force and any future recalibration of payments law.

The No-Action approach was designed to bridge that gap. It provided a temporary supervisory response to avoid immediate dual authorisation burdens, while preserving the underlying principle that EMT activity may fall within the payments perimeter.

In this sense, the transitional period was not only about operational alignment. It was also about regulatory sequencing, allowing time for legislative clarification to catch up with MiCA’s structural implications.

Supervisory Approach: What Was Deprioritised And What Was Not

The EBA recognised that EMT activity could fall within PSD2, but also acknowledged that immediate full application of payment rules would impose disproportionate operational burdens on CASPs already navigating MiCA authorisation.

As a result, national authorities were advised to apply PSD requirements with discretion during the transition. This included deprioritising certain elements of the payment rulebook, such as safeguarding arrangements for EMTs and specific consumer disclosure requirements on charges. The intention was not to remove these obligations permanently, but to avoid a sudden duplication of regulatory expectations while firms moved toward alignment.

But the transition was not intended to suspend core risk controls. Authorities were explicitly encouraged to insist on the application of key payment safeguards, including the use of strong customer authentication when accessing custodial wallets and initiating EMT transfers, fraud reporting obligations, and the cumulative calculation of own funds. These requirements reflected a clear supervisory priority.

In parallel, the EBA encouraged a streamlined approach to authorisation. Authorities were advised to make use of information already submitted in the CASP licensing process when assessing PSD applications, reducing the need for duplicative filings and enabling continuity of EMT-related services during the transition.

Post-Transition Reality: 4 Possible Regulatory Positions After March 2:

With the transition ending, the EBA’s February 2026 Opinion sets out how national authorities are expected to treat CASPs that continue to provide EMT-related services which qualify as payment services.

The Opinion recognises that, by this point, firms will not all stand in the same position. Supervisory expectations therefore diverge depending on how far alignment with the PSD framework has progressed.

Some CASPs have already obtained authorisation as a payment institution or electronic money institution, or have structured their operations through an authorised PSP acting on their behalf. These firms may continue to provide EMT services to the extent permitted by that authorisation. Where a partnership model is used, supervisors are encouraged to assess whether the PSP partner itself requires authorisation under MiCA.

Others have submitted applications for authorisation that remain under review. In these cases, authorities may allow the continuation of EMT-related payment services while the application is assessed, including on a cross-border basis, provided certain conditions are met. These include the submission of a complete application, cooperation with supervisory queries, and the absence of material compliance concerns that would undermine the likelihood of approval.

Where this conditional continuity is granted, it comes with clear limits. Firms may be required to refrain from marketing EMT payment services and from onboarding new clients during the interim period, ensuring that pending status does not translate into commercial expansion.

A third situation arises where authorisation is ultimately refused. In such cases, supervisors are advised to require firms to cease EMT services that qualify as payment services and to offboard affected clients in coordination with MiCA authorities where necessary.

Finally, where no application has been submitted, or where the firm does not meet the conditions for conditional continuity, authorities are advised to require the discontinuation of EMT services that qualify as payment services as of 2 March 2026, alongside the orderly offboarding of clients.

Enforcement Outlook: From Supervisory Flexibility to Alignment

The end of the transitional period is not only about the application of PSD rules, it also changes the supervisory posture under MiCA.

During the No-Action period, authorities were effectively managing a sequencing problem. EMT activity that functionally resembled payment services was recognised as falling within PSD, but enforcement of authorisation requirements was deferred to allow alignment.

That flexibility now ends. Where EMT-related services qualify as payment services but remain outside the PSD framework, they are no longer simply in a state of transition. They move into a state of non-compliance.

This shifts the dynamic from interpretative uncertainty to supervisory action. Authorities have been explicitly encouraged to coordinate between PSD and MiCA supervision, including through the use of restrictions attached to CASP authorisations where necessary.

In practical terms, this means that EMT-related services are likely to become an early focus of MiCA supervisory engagement. Not because the rules have changed, but because the period of sequencing their application has ended.

For firms that have aligned, March 2 is a continuation.For those that have not, it marks the point at which supervisory tolerance gives way to enforcement.

‍