On both sides of the Atlantic, regulators are grappling with the complex task of integrating digital finance into a legal framework. As the digital asset ecosystem grows, governments must strike a delicate balance between innovation, market integrity and economic and geopolitical sovereignty. This harmonisation has become crucial to avoid market fragmentation and allow crypto companies to operate effectively on a global scale.
While the EU and the US have historically taken very different approaches to financial regulation , their trajectories in the crypto space are tending to converge - not without real tensions. This convergence is essential to prevent regulatory arbitrage and ensure uniform investor protection.
Perfect harmonisation seems unlikely, but some alignment is becoming necessary as these assets find their place in regulated global financial markets. Without such coordination, the industry risks suffering from excessive regulatory complexity that would stifle innovation.
The child prodigy: the implementation of the EU's MiCA regime The European Regulation on Crypto-Asset Markets (MiCA) was not the first attempt at regulation : that honour goes to Japan, which amended its payment services law back in 2016. However, the EU is widely regarded as the first major market to put in place a comprehensive framework. Long in the making, then accelerated by the threat of the Libra/Diem project, MiCA is now being rolled out in the Member States. Companies such as Bitpanda and Cryptcom have already obtained licences to operate in the EU.
The EU's approach is based on detailed instruments defined at Community level and then transposed at national level. These texts, supplemented by precise implementing measures (level 2), aim to harmonise in favour of the "European passport" for service providers.
MiCA has rapidly become a global reference - hailed for its clarity and coherence, criticised for its overly prescriptive tone. Like it or not, it is emerging as a model for jurisdictions developing their own regulatory frameworks.
The sun rises: the US approach to cryptos and digital assets In contrast to the EU and its MiCA framework, the US has until recently applied its usual philosophy: rule-based regulation and strict enforcement. Although the tone has changed with the new Trump administration, and progress has been made (GENIUS Act, STABLE Act), the US framework is still fragmented and developing.
At federal level, the regulatory authority exists, but it is split between several entities (SEC, CFTC, OCC, FDIC). In addition, state regulators such as the NYDFS can also impose their own rules and issue licences.
However, a series of presidential executive orders have mobilised the US regulatory apparatus in favour of the crypto sector.
The SEC and CFTC are now actively consulting market players. The OCC has softened its stance, allowing banks to trade in cryptos without prior notification.
Legislation is progressing rapidly: rules on stablecoins are expected in the first quarter, followed by proposals on the overall structure of the market by mid-year. However, this openness does not mean a lax approach. It is worth noting that some of the guidelines are in line with those of MiCA, particularly with regard to reserve and licensing requirements for stablecoins. The United States is no longer on the sidelines: it is seeking to play a central role in defining the rules of the game.
Technological sovereignty and rivalry between jurisdictions Any comparison of regulatory regimes involves the question of competition between jurisdictions. In a world where globalisation is retreating in favour of a more fragmented geopolitics, technological sovereignty is becoming a crucial issue: it's all about keeping hold of critical infrastructures and platforms.
The EU is taking a particularly firm stance. The European Innovation Council defines technological sovereignty as the ability to avoid dependence on a limited number of foreign suppliers for essential technologies. Three questions guide this assessment:
Do we have the technology in Europe? If not, can we rely on several reliable suppliers? If not, do we have guaranteed access to dominant suppliers, often located in the United States or China? This positioning translates into requirements to locate activities within the EU, which complicates the entry of foreign players.
In contrast, the US relies on its dynamic venture capital and more flexible regulation to attract innovation. Some recent trade measures can be seen as responses to European policies aimed at strengthening domestic control. These tensions reflect the difficulty of reconciling national sovereignty and global interoperability.
Bridging the gap towards harmonisation Despite competitive pressure, the global dimension of cryptos calls for greater coordination. Companies like Circle are calling for harmonisation of US and European frameworks, particularly on stablecoins (where there is a big divergence, ed.) , in order to facilitate operations and support growth on a global scale. This convergence is particularly critical for cross-border financial services and industry innovation.
As the US refines its approach and MiCA rolls out in Europe, market reactions will provide a real-time test of the effectiveness of each framework. Industry players must continue to promote convergence on key issues - stablecoin processing, tokenised assets, anti-abuse standards - to create a truly global and interoperable crypto ecosystem.
For crypto markets to develop sustainably, regulators will need to strike a balance between healthy competition and harmonisation. Without this, there is a risk that innovation will stop at borders, depriving the sector of its potential for global transformation.
The recent announcement by the UK finance minister, Rachel Reeves, that she wants to create a common framework for cryptos between the UK and the US is a first signal in this direction: more globally, Europe needs to take the lead on this issue.
