France has proposed that passporting of crypto licences under MiCA receive oversight at the European level. The country’s authorities say a central review would reduce the risk that firms pick the easiest national supervisor and would improve consistent application of rules across member states.
Become a Doc: Profile Ethereum wallets and discover their behavior.
Use WalletAutopsy.
What passporting under MiCA means
Passporting lets a firm authorised in one EU state offer services across the bloc. Under the Markets in Crypto-Assets regulation, licence holders can operate cross-border once national authorities grant approval, but the process depends on the structure each member state sets up to implement MiCA.
The French intervention questions whether that decentralised approach is enough. French officials expressed concern that inconsistent checks and reporting could create weak points for market integrity, anti-money laundering controls, and consumer safeguards. Those concerns were reported by CCN.com, which covered France’s calls for a more central role.
Why France argues for EU-level oversight
French regulators frame the issue as one of uniform enforcement. They argue that when passporting relies solely on national approvals, firms may establish themselves in jurisdictions with lighter scrutiny and then operate across the single market with limited follow-up. The result, they say, could be uneven supervision.
Concerns extend to practical risks such as operational resilience and prudential checks. France highlights the difficulty of coordinating enforcement across many supervisors when incidents occur. A central review could help ensure applications satisfy common standards before market access is granted.
How this touches firms and service providers
Businesses that plan to offer services across the EU would face a clearer gatekeeping step. For some firms, a central review could lengthen approval timelines. For others, it may bring predictability if rules are applied uniformly and transparently.
Custodians and platforms that manage user funds would be especially affected. The proposal raises questions about how custody requirements and operational controls would be checked across borders. Firms that depend on licence passporting must prepare for more detailed scrutiny of governance and risk measures.
Risks for users and crypto wallets
Consumers and holders of crypto wallets are central to the case for oversight. French authorities emphasize that inconsistent supervision can leave users exposed when custody or service failures occur. A more centralised review aims to protect retail users and institutional clients alike.
Uniform standards on custody and disclosure could reduce incidents of unclear liability. Regulators contend that consistent checks will improve the information available to users about risk, and should make on-ramps and off-ramps safer for holders of crypto wallets.
On-chain monitoring and crypto analytics
Authorities see a role for better data and monitoring tools. France has suggested that a single review mechanism would work better with improved cross-border data sharing and stronger analytical tools to detect suspicious flows and operational issues. That approach would rely on enhanced crypto analytics to flag problems early.
Linking supervisory review with forensic data could speed incident response. Regulators want clearer lines for accessing transaction information and coordinating with national enforcement when on-chain evidence points to misconduct or operational failure.
Debate inside the EU institutions
Member states and EU bodies will weigh competing priorities. Some national regulators favour decentralised implementation to preserve national control, while others support more central powers to avoid arbitrage. The discussion touches political and technical questions about how to allocate responsibilities under MiCA.
Proposals under discussion include a coordinating role for an EU authority. Advocates argue that coordination would not replace national supervision, but would provide a common clearance step or an appeal path for passporting decisions. Opponents caution that adding layers may slow approvals or create legal complexity.
Practical next steps and what to expect
Legislators and regulators will consider technical amendments and procedural changes. The European Parliament and Council will review possible clauses that clarify how passporting should operate, which authority performs oversight, and what standards must be met before a licence becomes effective across the bloc.
Markets should watch for guidance that affects business operations and compliance budgets. Firms that rely on cross-border licences will need to track developments closely and adjust compliance frameworks, reporting processes, and corporate structures according to any new requirements.
What this means for market participants
For service providers, the proposal signals an era of closer scrutiny for cross-border activity. Platforms, custodians and other intermediaries should assess whether current controls would satisfy a central review and consider strengthening governance, AML systems, and transparency.
For policymakers, the debate highlights trade-offs between speed and consistency. France’s push reflects a desire for uniform enforcement across the EU that would aim to protect consumers and preserve market integrity without unduly hampering legitimate businesses.
The issue remains a live political and technical discussion in Brussels. Reporting by CCN.com brought attention to France’s position; the broader EU conversation will determine how MiCA’s passporting mechanism is implemented and supervised in practice.
Stakeholders should prepare for incremental changes rather than immediate overhaul. Legal drafting and negotiation take time, and any new oversight measures will follow established legislative processes. Firms and custodians may use this period to review controls and engage with regulators to clarify expectations.
In the months ahead, attention will focus on whether lawmakers set a central review, grant coordinating authority to an EU body, or preserve national primary responsibility. Each option carries implications for compliance, market access, and the protection of users who rely on crypto wallets and related services.
Readers tracking regulatory developments should expect further statements and technical papers as institutions refine their positions. The debate over passporting under MiCA will shape how cross-border crypto activity is supervised and how regulators use data and crypto analytics to monitor risks.