tl;dr
France warns of gaps in EU crypto licensing rules, threatening to block crypto firms operating in the country even if they hold a MiCAR license from another EU member state. French regulators, along with Italy and Austria, are pushing for centralized oversight to prevent regulatory arbitrage and e...
**France Sounds Alarm Over EU Crypto Licensing Gaps, Calls for Centralized Oversight**
France’s financial watchdog has thrown a curveball into the European crypto landscape, warning it may block crypto firms from operating in the country—even if they hold a so-called “golden ticket” of a MiCAR license from another EU nation. The French Financial Market Authority (AMF) is growing increasingly frustrated with what it sees as a patchwork of regulations, where companies exploit weaker oversight in some member states to fast-track their operations.
“Imagine a world where a crypto firm could legally operate in one EU country but be banned in another, simply because of where it got its license,” says Marie-Anne Barbat-Layani, AMF head. She’s not joking. The regulator has dubbed its potential move to block such firms a “nuclear option”—a drastic measure that would send shockwaves through the EU’s push for a unified digital market.
The problem? MiCAR, the EU’s landmark crypto regulation, was meant to create a level playing field. But in practice, firms are cherry-picking jurisdictions with laxer rules. Take Gemini, which secured its MiCAR license in Malta—a country known for its crypto-friendly policies—while Bitvavo and Kraken opted for the Netherlands and Ireland, respectively. These moves highlight a glaring loophole: even with a MiCAR license, companies can still operate in a way that bypasses stricter national rules elsewhere in the EU.
France, Italy, and Austria are now pushing back. The three regulators have joined forces to demand that the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) be granted more power to enforce uniform rules across the bloc. They argue that without centralized oversight, the EU risks becoming a “crypto Wild West,” where firms game the system by exploiting differences in national regulations.
“Right now, we’re seeing a race to the bottom,” says a source close to the AMF. “If one country tightens its rules, another will loosen them to attract business. That’s not sustainable.”
The call for stricter rules isn’t just about fairness—it’s about safety. Regulators are also pushing for tighter cybersecurity measures and closer scrutiny of token issuances to protect investors. After all, the crypto market is a hotbed for fraud, hacking, and volatility. With billions of euros at stake, the stakes are high.
But the debate over centralized oversight is far from settled. ESMA Chair Verena Ross has backed transferring more powers to the agency, arguing it’s the only way to prevent “regulatory arbitrage.” Yet some EU member states resist, fearing a loss of control over their own markets.
As the EU grapples with this tension, one thing is clear: the crypto world is too big, too fast, and too risky to be left to a patchwork of rules. Whether France’s “nuclear option” becomes a reality or not, the pressure is mounting for a unified, robust framework—one that can protect investors without stifling innovation.
So, where do you think the EU should draw the line? Should centralized oversight be the way forward, or is it time to let national regulators handle the messy, but necessary, work of policing crypto? The answer may shape the future of digital assets in Europe—and beyond.