October 5, 2026

Circle is urging the European Union to open its Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA) to foreign-regulated stablecoins and loosen reserve rules that constrain global issuers.

The USDC issuer proposed a recognition regime that could let qualifying overseas stablecoin companies distribute tokens in Europe without becoming fully authorized EU issuers, as part of a broader push to bring more of the global market inside the bloc’s regulatory perimeter.

Circle said only three of the world’s 25 largest stablecoins by market value, USDC, USDG and EURC, are currently regulated under MiCA, despite roughly 30 e-money tokens securing authorization since the framework took effect.

Under its proposal, the European Commission would first determine whether a foreign jurisdiction’s regulatory regime is equivalent to EU standards. The European Banking Authority (EBA) would then recognize individual issuers, which would remain primarily supervised in their home countries while distributing tokens through locally licensed institutions.

That would create an alternative to current MiCA rules, which generally require e-money token issuers seeking public distribution or trading in the bloc to obtain EU authorization.

Circle also wants regulators to preserve multi-issuance, where a MiCA-authorized European entity co-issues a globally circulating stablecoin with a foreign-regulated counterpart. The company said restricting that structure risks pushing European users toward offshore platforms and tokens outside MiCA’s protections.

Circle's proposed EU route requires Commission regime equivalence, EBA issuer recognition and locally licensed distribution; primary home supervision remains, and the MiCA review has not itself established this route.

MiCA stablecoin bank reserve rule draws wider opposition

Circle is also challenging a requirement that e-money token issuers keep at least 30% of reserves in commercial-bank deposits, rising to 60% for tokens classified as significant. It wants the requirement replaced with a broader liquidity standard, arguing mandatory deposits increase issuers’ exposure to bank credit and counterparty risk.