EMTs are legally considered electronic money.
The MiCA regulation explicitly states that electronic money tokens (EMTs) are considered electronic money. However, under PSD2, electronic money falls under the category of “funds”.
This classification is crucial: certain transactions involving EMTs may fall within the scope of payment services.
When does a crypto activity become a payment service?
In its No Action Letter of June 2025, and subsequently in its Opinion of February 12, 2026, the EBA clarified that the classification depends on the legal role of the service provider.
In its No Action Letter of June 2025, and subsequently in its Opinion of February 12, 2026, the EBA clarified that the classification depends on the legal role of the service provider.
- EMT transfers on behalf of clients;
- The safekeeping and administration of EMTs when wallets allow sending or receiving EMTs to or from third parties;
- The execution of transfers, including between accounts belonging to the same client (first-party transfers).
The technology used is less important than the legal nature of the intermediation.
The key question becomes: does the service provider act as an intermediary between a payer and a payee?
A widespread operating model
Historically, many CASPs have structured their business according to a relatively simple model:
- The client transfers euros to an account opened in the CASP’s name at a bank or PSP;
- The CASP centralizes the funds;
- The CASP executes a cryptocurrency purchase order on a cryptocurrency exchange (CEX);
- The crypto assets are then credited to the client.
In this model:
- The PSP or bank technically executes the payments;
- But the CASP receives the funds and decides how to allocate them;
- The CASP acts as an intermediary between the client and the exchange.
This system has long operated in a gray area of regulatory interpretation. The No Action Letter of June 2025 temporarily provided a degree of tolerance, allowing the market time to adapt.
This period is now ending.
What changes on March 2, 2026
The Opinion of February 12, 2026, outlines the supervisory priorities following the transition period.
Three scenarios are now possible:
1. The CASP is an authorized PSP/EME or relies on an authorized partner.
The business can continue operating within a compliant framework.
2. The CASP has submitted a complete application for authorization.
Temporary continuation may be tolerated, under strict conditions and without commercial development.
3. The CASP has not submitted an application.
The authorities are urged to demand the cessation of services classified as payment services and the offboarding of the affected clients.
The shift is clear: activities classified as payment services must now be carried out within a fully authorized framework.
The extension cannot exceed the scheduled deadlines (March 2, 2026, or July 1, 2026, depending on national transitional arrangements).
Why “using a PSP” is not always enough
One key point deserves clarification.
Simply using a PSP to technically execute payments is not necessarily sufficient to exclude the classification as a payment service. What matters is:
- Who legally receives the funds?
- Who decides how they are allocated?
- Who acts as an intermediary between the payer and the payee?
If the CASP receives the funds on behalf of the client and arranges their transfer to an exchange, it can be considered as providing a payment service as defined by PSD2.
The EBA clarification is based on this functional analysis.
Numerical illustration: the impact on capital
Let’s take the example of a CASP processing €100 million in crypto purchases per year that wants to become an EP.
By including fiat inflows and outflows, the total annual volume can reach approximately €200 million, or a monthly volume of €16.7 million.
Capital requirements for a payment institution are calculated based on the average monthly volume (1/12 of the annual volume).
In concrete terms, this results in 3 regulatory tiers:
- 4% on the first €5 million
- 2.5% on the €5–10 million bracket
- 1% on the €10–16.7 million bracket
This represents approximately €390,000 in prudential capital.
In practice, it can be estimated that the prudential authority will take into account:
- The 3-year growth trajectory;
- Le capital initial requis ;
- Overhead requirements;
- A potential economies of scale.
For a growing player, capital tied up could thus exceed €600,000 to €1 million, regardless of organizational costs (internal control, reporting, auditing). These amounts constitute prudential capital, which cannot be used for business development, liquidity, or innovation.
In this context, obtaining a payment institution license may be a relevant strategic choice for some large players; for others, using an already licensed and structured provider to handle the fiat layer will represent a more efficient alternative in terms of capital and time.
Towards a clearer structuring of the European market
From March 2, 2026, services involving EMTs (Economic Transferable Securities) classified as payment services must be provided within a fully authorized framework.
The end of the transition period does not mark a break, but rather a clarification. The market is moving towards an explicit separation between the fiat and crypto layers, a more precise definition of legal responsibilities, and strengthened architectures to meet the requirements of regulators, investors, and banking partners.
For CASPs (Cash-Asset Payment Service Providers), the challenge now goes beyond mere legal compliance. It has become a matter of capital, organization, and strategy. The central question is simple: who legally owns the fiat layer?
Internalizing implies authorization, capital requirements, and a dedicated prudential organization. Outsourcing allows for structuring a compliant architecture while preserving capital and investment capacity.
The separation between the fiat and crypto layers is gradually becoming a standard for regulatory robustness and operational simplification. The topic is no longer theoretical; it is now a structuring element for the development of Cash-Based Payment Services (CSPs) in Europe.
Find the details of the ACPR’s CSP PSP authorization requirement here.
