By Isadora Arredondo, VP Global Policy, Hedera

Two important deadlines for digital asset firms in Europe land days apart this month. Both relate to MiCA, the EU’s flagship crypto rulebook. On 30 September, the European Commission will finish gathering feedback on how those rules work. Two days before Europe’s banking regulator will wrap up its own consultation on how it calculates fines for issuers of significant tokens under its direct supervision. Both deserve more attention than the MiCA narrative currently making headlines, the sharp drop in the number of firms authorised to operate across Europe.

Back in June, more than three thousand digital asset companies were still allowed to serve customers across the EU. By 31 July, only 321 MiCA-authorised crypto-asset service providers still had that right. That shift reflects the end of MiCA’s transitional period. This window, now closed, allowed companies to keep operating under old national permissions while applying for a licence under new EU-wide rules. Some might say that this looks like companies fleeing Europe. I see it differently. Getting a licence isn’t a contest won by keeping the most companies in the game, it’s a check on which companies can be trusted with people’s money. Fewer companies doesn’t mean a weaker market. What matters is whether the ones still standing are run properly.

Together, both consultations point to a bigger question – how can we make the European market globally competitive? There are two ways to work towards an answer. One is consistency in how the rules get applied. The other is a more strategic discussion about market structure.

Take consistency. Some EU countries gave companies less time to sort paperwork than others, with deadlines already passed. This was understandable while everyone found their feet, but has become a bigger problem now the rules are fully in force. The Netherlands gave crypto firms six months to transition. France gave them eighteen. That creates a risk of “jurisdiction shopping”: firms seeking authorisation where the regulatory path appears easiest, then passporting across all 27 EU nations. The same principle shows up in fines. MiCA requires member states to provide for maximum administrative fines of at least five million euros for certain infringements, but member states can go further under national law. So the trouble a company faces can depend more on where it’s registered than how serious the mistake was. The EBA’s consultation covers significant token issuers under its direct supervision and aims to make fines consistent, proportionate, and transparent. Consistent fines mean companies know what to expect wherever they operate. More broadly, inconsistent enforcement risks encouraging firms to set up wherever oversight appears easiest.

A more strategic question is what happens to the market structure of digital finance in Europe as incumbents move onto the same infrastructure as digital asset firms, and

decentralised systems start doing work that used to sit in clearly separate roles. The Commission’s review is a chance to assess how that shift will shape the future of finance, not just to move activities in and out of the regulatory perimeter one at a time.

The consultation begins with some of these questions, albeit framing them as legalistic terms. In reality, we should use this window to talk about how finance can become more seamless, effective and integrated.

Neither deadline should become a chance to litigate MiCA. The job is to smooth gaps, not to reopen the balance the rules were built on: protecting customers while leaving room for useful companies to grow. Europe was first to write clear digital asset rules. Whether that head start stays real depends on these two deadlines, not the companies already gone.