Cryptocurrencies have expanded rapidly in recent years and are now used by individuals and businesses worldwide, allowing the digital transfer of value without relying on traditional financial (TradFi) institutions. This growth has created new opportunities, such as faster transactions, lower costs and innovative business models. However, it has also introduced significant risks, including fraud, market instability, limited consumer protection, and uncertainty about legal responsibility.
To address these challenges, public authorities have begun to regulate crypto-assets in an effort to provide legal certainty, safeguard users, and maintain market integrity. At the same time, it seeks to support innovation by establishing clear and consistent rules for participants in the crypto market.
At the London Blockchain Conference 2025, experts from blockchain technology, Bitcoin and TradFi came together to examine the role of regulation in the digital asset sector, with a key point of their debate circulating on whether crypto-asset regulation acts as a driver of innovation or a barrier to growth.
In particular, panellists focused on the Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) regulation in the European Union, a law viewed by some as a positive step that provides clarity and confidence for businesses and investors, while others questioned whether such stringent rule could slow development in a fast-moving industry.
Jumping Through Hoops
Attention has increasingly turned to concrete regulatory frameworks that seek to balance innovation with oversight this 2025, as lawmakers rush to pass bills not only in an attempt to ensure market integrity is upheld, but likely to gain some form of control in a growing industry dominated by pioneers of emerging technologies.
One of the most significant regulatory frameworks is the EU’s MiCA, a regulation designed to create a single, clear set of rules for crypto-assets across all EU member states, ultimately replacing the fragmented and uncertain legal environment that previously existed. It sets out how crypto-assets may be issued, how service providers must operate and what duties they owe to users, with a strong focus on transparency, consumer protection and market stability.
Within the crypto industry, early views on MiCA have been divided but largely pragmatic. Many market participants welcome the regulation because it offers legal clarity and consistent standards, which can increase trust among investors and customers, as well as make it easier to operate across borders. Others, however, remain cautious, noting that compliance requirements may be costly and demanding, particularly for smaller firms and start-ups, which Laurent Marochini, CEO of Standard Chartered at Luxembourg, emphasised in the panel discussion on MiCA at the London Blockchain Conference.
“It’s very heavy. If you want to move forward with MiCA…moving to MiCA is between 12 and 18 months of process. You need to spend £500,000; it’s quite costly because you need to rely on energy; you need to be focused to get MiCA (licence). If you are a start-up and you want to get MiCA, it can be a nightmare,” he said, answering a question on MiCA licence application thrown by panel moderator Juan Ignacio Ibañez, general secretary of the MiCA Crypto Alliance.
This practical challenge becomes even clearer when looking at the application process in great detail. Marochini said that firms that already hold a virtual asset service provider (VASP) registration are given a transition period to fully comply with MiCA, but noted that this period involves substantial preparation.
Applying for a MiCA licence requires detailed business plans, extensive documentation on anti-money laundering (AML) controls, governance and internal policies – a scale that reflects the magnitude of the MiCA regulation.
“It’s very heavy, but when you have it, you just can just justify to your clients that the security is with you; they should be very comfortable. But it’s not very easy to have it,” Marochini said.
MiCA – Guardrails or Growth Limits?
The complexity of obtaining a MiCA licence also sets the stage for a wider discussion on whether such regulation ultimately enables or constrains innovation.
Building on the practical challenges faced by firms during the application process, London Blockchain Conference panellist Thomas Giacomo remains a believer that the regulation can be seen as an enabler as it brings clarity and structure to the regulatory system, not only within Europe but also beyond its borders.
He noted that MiCA is already influencing regulatory discussions in other regions, where its rules are used as a reference point when shaping local frameworks.
“MiCA has an impact in terms of creating some kind of benchmark to enable the adoption on other countries other than just Europe. I would say that for now, the good part is if we compare MiCA to regulatory frameworks in Dubai, for instance, MiCA is maybe a little more precise in terms of scope and with clear rules,” Giacomo said.
Christian Moor, Principal Policy Expert at the European Banking Authority, was quick to agree, saying that the passing of the regulation was a milestone for the EU, especially at a time that much of the world is against these speculative assets and permissionless public blockchains.
“We came up with some…regulation and give credibility to the whole industry. I don’t think you can take that away,” Moor noted.
A Signal of Broader Policy Shifts
As the discussion moved beyond immediate regulatory impacts, attention shifted to the longer-term policy implications of MiCA. A perspective from Velitor Law Founder Seamus Andrew framed MiCA not simply as a technical rulebook, but as an early signal of a much broader debate taking shape within financial policy.
In his view, MiCA represents a leading step in what could become the most significant banking policy discussion in decades, and at the center of this emerging debate is the role of stablecoins, which sit at the intersection of TradFi and crypto markets.
Their growing use and potential systemic importance, he said, suggest that MiCA may be only the starting point of deeper regulatory questions about money, payments and financial stability at the digital age.
Andrew then turns to a central policy dilemma of whether stablecoins should be fully embraced or more tightly controlled, as regulators grew increasingly concerned about their potential impact on bank deposits.
“The problem they face, and this is the problem that the Bank of England is going to face next year when it decides what to do with stablecoins, is do you try to make sure that you protect bank deposits by forcing stablecoin issuers to keep their reserves in bank deposits…or do you go…and let them invest in assets which are safe, [like] treasury bonds, but which might denude the banking sector of all its deposits?” Andrew said. “This is a huge policy question, which probably hasn’t been seen since the countries of the West decide whether to give up the gold standard.”
Alongside these policy-level concerns, panellists also addressed how MiCA affects the different layers of the crypto ecosystem in practice. Although it primarily regulates token issuance and VASPs rather than core blockchain infrastructure, its influence still reaches actors operating at the protocol level.
Vivek Chand, Head of Business at BSV Association (BSVA), explained that even without being directly regulated, his organisation actively engages with MiCA standards. From this perspective, the regulation is not viewed as an obstacle, but as a necessary foundation for wider adoption.
“At the end of the day, the way that we see it is that’s what’s going to drive enterprise and institutional adoption because it creates that kind of credibility, that kind of stability for those markets and those people that actually want to adopt the technology, you know, to have that kind of trust,” he said, highlighting the importance of regulation to further attract enterprise and institutional participants.
Chand further noted that opinions on whether MiCA is perceived as a source of trust or as regulatory burden depend on perspective. Based on his experience, Chand said MiCA appears to be more focused on intermediaries such as exchanges and custodians, where regulatory oversight is more clearly defined. He then suggested that other areas, including tokenisation, decentralised finance (DeFi) and real-world assets (RWAs), may require a different regulatory approach, one that focused more on technology standards and data integrity rather than traditional compliance models.
The discussions around MiCA reflect a market in transition rather than one under threat. While the regulation introduces complexity, cost and hard policy questions, it also signals that crypto-assets are no longer viewed as a temporary or marginal phenomenon. Instead, they are being treated as a permanent part of the financial system that requires clear rules and responsible oversight.
The discussion at the London Blockchain Conference showed that regulation and innovation are not necessarily opposing forces. When designed and applied carefully, frameworks such as MiCA can provide the trust, stability and legal certainty needed for broader adoption, including by enterprises and institutions.
Be part of the ongoing dialogue between regulators, industry leaders and technologists – register your interest for the next London Blockchain Finance Summit happening on 12 March 2026.
