Home › Articles › Europe Built the Bridge Between Its Crypto Rulebook and Its Securities Rulebook

Europe Built the Bridge Between Its Crypto Rulebook and Its Securities Rulebook

· 17 September 2026 · 6 min read · Regulation
Diagram of the ESMA pathway taking MiCA-licensed crypto firms to MiFID II investment firm status

MiCA MiFID dual licensing is now a defined route: ESMA guidance from March 2026 created an expedited pathway for MiCA-licensed crypto firms to obtain MiFID II investment firm status.

On this page

ESMA guidance issued in March 2026 created an expedited pathway for MiCA-licensed crypto firms to obtain MiFID II investment firm status. OKX and four other exchanges are pursuing dual licensing, expected in late 2026.

That is the thing the United States has spent two years failing to do, delivered as a piece of administrative guidance.

The problem the MiCA to MiFID pathway solves

A crypto exchange and a securities firm are regulated under different regimes, by different rules, often by different authorities. A venue that wants to offer both crypto trading and tokenized securities has historically needed two separate authorisations, obtained through two separate processes, with no recognition of the overlap.

That overlap is substantial. Both regimes require capital adequacy, client asset segregation, governance standards, conduct rules, market abuse controls and complaints handling. A firm that has satisfied MiCA on those points has already done most of the work MiFID II asks for.

ESMA's guidance recognises that. It does not merge the regimes or lower the standard; it removes the duplication in demonstrating compliance with both.

Why the sequencing matters

MiCA came first and is in enforcement. Firms obtained MiCA licences, built the compliance infrastructure, and then found the securities side blocked by a separate process.

Building the bridge from MiCA to MiFID II rather than the reverse means the crypto-native firms are the ones being brought into the securities perimeter, rather than securities firms being invited into crypto.

That is a deliberate policy choice with a competitive consequence. It advantages firms that were crypto-first and have since matured, over traditional institutions adding a crypto desk.

The American comparison

The contrast is not flattering.

In the United States, the SEC proposed Regulation Crypto Assets on 18 August under file S7-2026-27, an offering framework for tokens. Its separate crypto ETF rules review under Release 33-11426 closed to comment on 31 August. The CLARITY Act, which would allocate jurisdiction between the SEC and CFTC, faces a Senate cloture vote on 15 September requiring sixty votes, and prediction markets have been marking down its 2026 odds.

None of that is a bridge. It is three separate processes, at three different stages, run by two agencies and a legislature that has not resolved which of them is in charge.

A firm choosing where to build a venue offering crypto and tokenized securities can get a defined pathway in Europe with an expected completion date. In the United States it can read a proposed rule.

Where else this is happening

Europe is not alone, and the competition is regional.

Hong Kong's OKX holds a Type 1 securities dealer licence alongside a Virtual Asset Service Provider licence — the first exchange globally with both in one jurisdiction, allowing crypto, tokenized equities and Hong Kong-listed stocks on one venue. HashKey Exchange operates under a VASP licence with co-custody from HSBC and Standard Chartered.

South Korea has settled the classification question through tax, applying capital gains treatment to tokenized stocks as investable securities. Japan extended its Payment Services Act so licensed banks, trust companies and money transfer agents can issue stablecoins.

Each is a different mechanism reaching the same destination: a defined legal treatment for tokenized financial instruments.

What could still go wrong

Expedited is not automatic. The pathway shortens the process; it does not guarantee approval, and national competent authorities retain discretion.

Late 2026 is an expectation. No dual licence has completed. Slippage would suggest the pathway is less expedited than described.

Passporting is untested here. MiFID II authorisation in one member state normally allows operation across the EU. Whether that works smoothly for firms arriving via MiCA is a question the first cases will answer.

What to watch

The first completed dual licence. Which firm, which member state, and how long it took.

Whether more than five firms apply. Five pursuing it is a pilot cohort. Twenty would be a market shift.

Passporting in practice. The real prize is one authorisation covering the single market.

Whether US firms seek EU licences first. That would be the clearest verdict on which regime is workable, and it is checkable from public registers.

Why administrative guidance beat legislation

There is a lesson in the mechanism, not just the outcome.

ESMA did not need a new law. MiCA and MiFID II both already existed, and the guidance simply recognised that a firm satisfying one has demonstrated most of what the other requires. That is an interpretive act available to any regulator with two overlapping regimes.

The United States has the same raw material. The SEC and CFTC both have established registration frameworks, and a firm registered with one has satisfied a substantial share of the other's requirements.

What is missing is not authority but agreement on who leads, which is precisely what the CLARITY Act would settle and precisely why its failure would matter.

Europe demonstrated that the bridge can be built administratively when the agencies agree. That is what makes the European route work.

About this report. The ESMA March 2026 guidance, the expedited pathway and the late-2026 expectation are from Yellow's research on exchange licensing strategies, which also supplies the OKX and HashKey licence details. US regulatory dates are from SEC releases and Bitcoin Foundation reporting. Asian framework details are from KuCoin's regional summary. No dual licence has yet been completed.

Not legal or investment advice. Licence applications are subject to regulator discretion and national implementation varies.

Frequently asked questions

What did ESMA's guidance change?

It created an expedited pathway for MiCA-licensed crypto firms to obtain MiFID II investment firm status. OKX and four other exchanges are pursuing dual licensing, expected in late 2026. The guidance removes duplication in demonstrating compliance instead of lowering the standard.

Why does the direction of travel matter?

Because building the bridge from MiCA to MiFID II means crypto-native firms are being brought into the securities perimeter, rather than securities firms being invited into crypto. That advantages firms that were crypto-first and have since matured.

How does this compare to the United States?

The US has three separate processes at three different stages, run by two agencies and a legislature that has not settled which is in charge. Europe delivered a defined pathway with an expected completion date through administrative guidance alone.

What could still go wrong?

Expedited is not automatic — national competent authorities retain discretion, no dual licence has yet completed, and whether MiFID II passporting works smoothly for firms arriving via MiCA is a question the first cases will answer.

Sources

regulation

Read next