The European Securities and Markets Authority has rejected calls from French, Austrian and Italian regulators to centralise supervision of major crypto firms under its direct control. The agency cited legal constraints in the EU’s crypto markets current framework.
Responding to a query from EU Perspectives, a spokesperson for the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) stressed that the current regime, Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA), mandates national oversight. “The Market in Crypto Assets regulation as it is designed right now does not consider central supervision,” the spokesperson said. “The current model is one of national supervision within a harmonised rulebook.”
The statement directly counters a Monday proposal by the Autorité des Marchés Financiers (AMF), Finanzmarktaufsichtsbehörde (FMA) and Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (CONSOB), which argued fragmented enforcement of MiCA—rolled out in late 2024—exposed investors to risks. The trio had urged ESMA to adopt a banking-style supervisory mechanism, claiming “opportunistic choices between countries” for licences undermined standards.
New framework needed
ESMA acknowledged concerns about uneven practices but insisted its hands are tied. “Our role is to promote supervisory convergence with the objective of ensuring a level playing field…without regulatory arbitrage or a race to the bottom between member states,” the spokesperson said.
While the watchdog noted it had “concluded it was a good time to reconsider…more EU-level supervision” in a 2024 paper, it clarified that such reforms would require legislative overhauls. “To allow such a change, there would be the need to develop a new regulatory framework,” the spokesperson added.
You might be interested
The rebuttal follows scrutiny of Malta’s Financial Services Authority (MFSA), which licensed crypto exchanges like OKX before ESMA flagged “material issues” in its approval process. Bloomberg reported in March that North Korean hackers laundered $1.5bn via OKX, prompting calls for stricter oversight. ESMA’s June review of Malta’s practices highlighted unresolved shortcomings but stopped short of challenging its authority—underscoring the limits of the watchdog’s convergence mandate.
It is the EU legislators’ turn
The AMF, FMA and CONSOB had proposed four fixes, including centralised ESMA supervision, tougher rules for non-EU platforms and mandatory cybersecurity audits. ESMA sidestepped endorsing these, instead directing attention to a European Commission consultation on capital-market integration, which identifies divergent supervision as a barrier to unity.
To allow such a change (toward centralisation), there would be the need to develop a new regulatory framework. — ESMA spokesperson
For now, the watchdog’s stance leaves MiCA’s enforcement in national hands—a structure its architects defended as sufficient during negotiations. ESMA reiterated its focus on harmonisation, stating it is “working intensely on ensuring convergence in the authorisation and supervision” of crypto firms.
With regulators in Paris, Vienna and Rome warning of “major differences” in applying MiCA, the ball now lies with EU legislators. Without legal upgrades, ESMA’s role as a crypto overseer will remain advisory—leaving Brussels’ bid to lead global crypto regulation reliant on member states’ uneven rigor.
