Top 25 Stablecoins Worldwide—EU Only Recognizes 3 🦖
⚡ 有大动静群里说
Circle submitted its reconsideration comments to the European Commission on Thursday regarding MiCA (Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation). Current rules keep many issuers in check, but they have barely captured the largest set of stablecoins globally. Among the stablecoins in the top 25 by market cap, only three are truly recognized under MiCA.
Circle is putting it plainly: this isn’t effective regulation—it’s keeping the biggest players out of the door. It issues the US dollar stablecoin USDC and the euro stablecoin EURC, and this time it’s negotiating with regulators on behalf of the whole industry.
The core of the disagreement is reserves. MiCA currently requires electronic money token issuers to place at least 30% of reserves in commercial bank deposits. For tokens classified as “significant,” that ratio must be raised to 60%. Circle argues this would actually amplify exposure to credit risk in the banking system, and it calls for more flexible liquidity requirements—on this point, it is unusually aligned with the European Central Bank.
It also wants to remove two “self-imposed limits”: the cap that a single sovereign exposure cannot exceed 35%, and the limit on deposits held with any one bank. The reason is that major issuers would be forced to spread reserves across dozens of banks, which would worsen both costs and safety.
Another issue is identity. Circle strongly supports retaining a “multi-issuer” structure—meaning that a stablecoin circulating globally has both a licensed EU entity and an affiliated overseas entity existing at the same time. It warns that if this path is blocked, the business will simply move directly abroad.
The backdrop is that the EU is preparing a major revision to MiCA in 2027, specifically targeting stablecoin issuers located outside the EU. The other side of this is that the U.S. and the EU are increasingly competing for control over stablecoins: U.S. issuers are moving outward, and Washington is also increasingly treating “dollar stablecoins” as a tool to extend U.S. influence.
My take: don’t treat this as a purely technical opinion. It reveals a reality—EU wants to keep dollar stablecoins out using rules, while the market votes with its feet, and institutions want the ones that can circulate globally. The real point isn’t whether it’s 30% or 60%, but whether, in the 2027 revision, the EU will truly go after overseas issuers. If they act, it’s protection for local players; if they don’t, it effectively admits the rules can’t accommodate the market.
Do you think the EU will end up confronting this head-on or compromising in the final outcome? Let’s discuss in the comments 👇
Click the profile picture to watch the live stream.
Every day, I’ll take you through crypto-asset news hotspots—not just what happens, but also how to understand the underlying logic and opportunities 👀🚀
⚡ 有大动静群里说
Circle submitted its reconsideration comments to the European Commission on Thursday regarding MiCA (Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation). Current rules keep many issuers in check, but they have barely captured the largest set of stablecoins globally. Among the stablecoins in the top 25 by market cap, only three are truly recognized under MiCA.
Circle is putting it plainly: this isn’t effective regulation—it’s keeping the biggest players out of the door. It issues the US dollar stablecoin USDC and the euro stablecoin EURC, and this time it’s negotiating with regulators on behalf of the whole industry.
The core of the disagreement is reserves. MiCA currently requires electronic money token issuers to place at least 30% of reserves in commercial bank deposits. For tokens classified as “significant,” that ratio must be raised to 60%. Circle argues this would actually amplify exposure to credit risk in the banking system, and it calls for more flexible liquidity requirements—on this point, it is unusually aligned with the European Central Bank.
It also wants to remove two “self-imposed limits”: the cap that a single sovereign exposure cannot exceed 35%, and the limit on deposits held with any one bank. The reason is that major issuers would be forced to spread reserves across dozens of banks, which would worsen both costs and safety.
Another issue is identity. Circle strongly supports retaining a “multi-issuer” structure—meaning that a stablecoin circulating globally has both a licensed EU entity and an affiliated overseas entity existing at the same time. It warns that if this path is blocked, the business will simply move directly abroad.
The backdrop is that the EU is preparing a major revision to MiCA in 2027, specifically targeting stablecoin issuers located outside the EU. The other side of this is that the U.S. and the EU are increasingly competing for control over stablecoins: U.S. issuers are moving outward, and Washington is also increasingly treating “dollar stablecoins” as a tool to extend U.S. influence.
My take: don’t treat this as a purely technical opinion. It reveals a reality—EU wants to keep dollar stablecoins out using rules, while the market votes with its feet, and institutions want the ones that can circulate globally. The real point isn’t whether it’s 30% or 60%, but whether, in the 2027 revision, the EU will truly go after overseas issuers. If they act, it’s protection for local players; if they don’t, it effectively admits the rules can’t accommodate the market.
Do you think the EU will end up confronting this head-on or compromising in the final outcome? Let’s discuss in the comments 👇
Click the profile picture to watch the live stream.
Every day, I’ll take you through crypto-asset news hotspots—not just what happens, but also how to understand the underlying logic and opportunities 👀🚀
