Europe’s stablecoin debate centers on fungibility issue

The European Union’s sweeping crypto rulebook has a gap, and it can be summed up in one word: fungible.

As the Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) framework settles into full enforcement, regulators are grappling with a structural question that the original legislation didn’t quite answer. When two separate entities in two separate countries each issue an identical stablecoin, each backed by their own reserves, is that one stablecoin or two? The European Commission is expected to weigh in soon, and the answer could reshape how digital dollars and euros flow across the continent.

The multi-issuance problem

The core tension is straightforward. MiCA requires stablecoin issuers to maintain 1:1 reserves, submit to regular audits, and meet comprehensive governance standards. But when multiple issuers produce fungible tokens under a shared banner, questions multiply fast. Which regulator oversees which reserves? If one issuer’s reserves fall short, does the entire token lose credibility? Can a user in France holding tokens issued by an entity in Singapore expect the same protections as tokens issued by an entity in Frankfurt?

Who’s in, who’s out

The urgency of this debate has intensified since July 1, 2026, when the transitional period for crypto-asset service providers officially ended across the EU. That deadline eliminated the grandfathering exemptions that had allowed non-compliant tokens to continue trading on licensed European platforms. Stablecoins that haven’t secured MiCA authorization as either e-money tokens (EMTs) or asset-referenced tokens (ARTs) now face delistings.

The list of survivors is notably short. USDC, EURC, and USDG have obtained MiCA authorization. These compliant tokens continue to operate under the framework’s strict requirements, including single-fiat-currency referencing for EMTs and specific authorization and reserve mandates for ARTs.

The most conspicuous absence: USDT, the world’s most widely used stablecoin by trading volume. Tether’s flagship token has faced delistings from EU-licensed platforms due to non-compliance with MiCA’s requirements.

Why fungibility matters more than it sounds

The question MiCA now faces is whether a stablecoin issued by Entity A in Ireland and the same-named stablecoin issued by Entity B in Luxembourg should be treated as the same asset.

If regulators say yes, they’re effectively endorsing a model where consumer protections depend on the weakest link in a chain of issuers. A user might hold tokens that are technically backed by reserves they have no visibility into, governed by regulations they can’t access, in a jurisdiction they’ve never heard of.

If regulators say no, they risk fragmenting liquidity across European markets. Tokens that look identical on a blockchain but carry different regulatory classifications would create confusion for exchanges, DeFi protocols, and everyday users alike.

The competitive landscape shifts

For issuers that have already secured MiCA compliance, the regulatory uncertainty around multi-issuance actually presents an opportunity. Circle, which issues both USDC and EURC, operates under a single-issuer model that sidesteps the multi-issuance question entirely.

MiCA’s stablecoin provisions have been fully applicable since June 2024, with broader rules for crypto-asset service providers taking effect later that year. Europe is now the world’s most comprehensive laboratory for how regulated stablecoins actually function at scale.

One additional wrinkle worth noting: MiCA generally excludes unique, non-fungible tokens from its scope, but large issued series or fractionalized NFTs that are deemed fungible could fall under regulation. The fungibility question, in other words, doesn’t just affect stablecoins. It’s a definitional fault line running through the entire European crypto regulatory framework.

Disclosure: This article was edited by Editorial Team. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.