By mid-2025, stablecoin regulation had split into two clear paths: one shaped by the European Union’s MiCA rules, and another taking shape in the United States through a new federal framework. These aren’t just different laws-they’re different philosophies about money, risk, and who controls the future of digital finance.
What MiCA Actually Does
MiCA, short for Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation, became fully active in December 2024. It’s not a suggestion. It’s law. And it applies to every crypto asset service provider operating in the 27-country EU bloc. For stablecoins, MiCA breaks them into two clear buckets: e-money tokens (EMTs) and asset-referenced tokens (ARTs).
EMTs are simple: they’re backed 1:1 by a single currency, like the euro. Think EURC, the euro-backed stablecoin from the European Payments Initiative. To issue one, you must be a licensed bank or electronic money institution. You need at least €350,000 in capital. You must let users redeem their tokens for cash anytime, no questions asked. And you must publish a full white paper detailing how your reserves are held.
ARTs are more complex. These are stablecoins like USDC or USDT that track the value of the dollar, gold, or a basket of assets. Under MiCA, ART issuers must be legally based in the EU. They must hold 100% of their reserves in high-quality liquid assets-cash, short-term government bonds, or similar. No vague promises. No risky investments. And algorithmic stablecoins? Completely banned. Protocols like Frax, which used complex code to maintain price stability without full reserves, were wiped out overnight in the EU.
The European Banking Authority can also label any stablecoin as “significant” if it hits one of three thresholds: over 1 million daily transactions, 1 million active users, or 1% of the EU population using it. Once labeled, the issuer faces even stricter rules, like holding 120% reserves instead of 100%. This isn’t theoretical. USDC, with over 12 million EU users by early 2025, was flagged as significant.
The US Approach: Treasury Backing Above All
The U.S. doesn’t have one unified law yet-but it has a clear direction. Unlike MiCA, the U.S. framework doesn’t ban algorithmic stablecoins. Instead, it demands that nearly all reserves be held in U.S. Treasury bonds or central bank reserves. Circle’s CEO Jeremy Allaire confirmed in congressional testimony that the rule requires at least 80% of reserves to be in U.S. Treasuries.
Why? The goal isn’t just safety-it’s dollar dominance. The U.S. Treasury Department’s March 2025 white paper openly states that this framework is designed to increase demand for U.S. government debt. More stablecoins = more buyers of U.S. Treasuries = lower borrowing costs for the federal government.
By May 2025, the six largest U.S.-issued stablecoins held $187.4 billion in U.S. Treasuries. That’s up from just $28.6 billion in early 2023. That’s not a coincidence. It’s policy in action.
But there’s no equivalent to MiCA’s “significant token” designation. There’s no EU-style threshold for systemic risk. No centralized authority that says, “This stablecoin is too big to fail.” Instead, oversight is split between the OCC, the Fed, and state regulators. That’s a problem. A fragmented system means loopholes. It means inconsistent enforcement. And it means uncertainty for businesses trying to comply.
Compliance Costs and Market Impact
MiCA didn’t just change rules-it changed markets.
Issuers spent an average of €2.7 million and 8-12 months to get compliant. Paxos spent €4.3 million just to set up a new EU subsidiary in Dublin. Binance had to notify 1.2 million users in 10 days that their non-compliant stablecoins were being delisted. By June 2025, the EU stablecoin market shrank by 37%-from $58.3 billion to $36.7 billion. Only two stablecoins remained fully compliant: USDC and EURC. Together, they controlled 89.7% of the compliant market.
In the U.S., the market grew. From $145.2 billion to $192.7 billion in the same period. USDT still held 58.4% of the market share. Why? Because the rules were looser. Users still had access to USDT, USDC, DAI, and others. No forced delistings. No sudden loss of liquidity.
But here’s the trade-off: MiCA’s strict rules made redemption rock-solid. During the March 2023 banking crisis, MiCA-compliant stablecoins had a 99.98% redemption success rate. In the U.S., $12.7 billion in stablecoin value temporarily de-pegged during the same period, according to MIT’s Digital Currency Initiative.
Circle’s own data showed MiCA-compliant USDC had 27% higher redemption volumes during market stress-and 98.7% of requests were processed within 47 minutes. Non-compliant tokens? Only 78.3% cleared that fast.
Real-World Winners and Losers
The European Payments Initiative’s EURC became the first stablecoin used for real retail payments across the EU. In Q1 2025, it processed €4.2 billion in transactions-with zero redemption failures. That’s the kind of reliability MiCA was built for.
Meanwhile, TerraUSD Classic (USTC), a non-MiCA compliant stablecoin, collapsed during the transition period. EU users lost $2.1 billion in value because exchanges stopped trading it. That was avoidable. And it’s exactly why MiCA was created.
In the U.S., the biggest win was infrastructure. Circle partnered with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York for $350 million to build direct access to Treasury repo markets. That’s a game-changer. It means stablecoin issuers can now buy Treasuries in real time, without going through intermediaries.
But there’s a hidden risk. The IMF warned in April 2025 that concentrating so much stablecoin backing in U.S. Treasuries could destabilize the very market it’s trying to strengthen. If interest rates spike, or if the Treasury market freezes, the entire stablecoin system could be at risk.
Which Approach Is Better?
There’s no simple answer.
MiCA gives you certainty. You know exactly what’s allowed. You know what’s banned. You know who’s responsible. That’s why 78% of global central banks called it the “gold standard.” But it’s rigid. It kills innovation. It pushes non-EU companies out. And it shrinks choice.
The U.S. approach gives you flexibility. You can still use algorithmic models. You can still access a wider range of stablecoins. But you’re gambling on one asset: U.S. Treasuries. And if that asset cracks, the whole system wobbles.
Harvard Law School’s Kristin Johnson gave MiCA a 4.2/5 for consumer protection but criticized its “inflexible approach to innovation.” She rated the U.S. framework 3.8/5-praising its dollar-boosting goal but warning about “concerning concentration risks.”
And then there’s the global perspective. The International Organization of Securities Commissions is already drafting global standards that try to blend both models. But so far, the two systems are pulling in opposite directions.
What Comes Next?
MiCA’s next step? The European Banking Authority will publish its first list of “significant” stablecoins by September 30, 2025. That means stricter reserve rules for the biggest players.
In the U.S., the Senate Banking Committee approved a bill in June 2025 requiring stablecoin issuers to get federal charters from the OCC. That’s a step toward centralization-but it’s still not the same as MiCA’s unified system.
One thing is clear: the world is watching. Businesses are choosing where to operate based on these rules. Investors are betting on which system will win. And everyday users? They’re using stablecoins, whether they know the rules or not.
Whether you’re in Berlin, New York, or Wellington, the future of money is being written in Brussels and Washington. And the choices made today will shape how we move money for decades to come.
Is MiCA the same as the GENIUS Act?
No, there is no official "GENIUS Act" in U.S. law. The term appears to be a misstatement or confusion. The U.S. framework refers to a set of pending legislative proposals, including the Stablecoin Transparency Act and the Clarity for Payment Stablecoins Act, which aim to create a federal charter system for stablecoin issuers. These are not named "GENIUS," and no such bill has been introduced or passed as of mid-2025.
Can I still use USDT in the EU?
You can, but not through EU-based exchanges. MiCA requires stablecoin issuers to be EU-based for asset-referenced tokens (ARTs). Since USDT is issued by Tether, a non-EU company, EU exchanges had to delist it by March 31, 2025. However, users can still hold USDT on non-EU platforms or through peer-to-peer transfers-but they lose the protections MiCA offers, like guaranteed redemptions and reserve transparency.
Are algorithmic stablecoins banned everywhere?
No. Only under MiCA. The EU banned them outright because they don’t use real-world asset reserves. In the U.S., algorithmic stablecoins like DAI are still allowed, as long as they meet reserve requirements. The U.S. framework doesn’t ban any type of stablecoin-it just requires stronger backing.
Why does MiCA require EU-based issuers?
To ensure regulatory control. If a stablecoin issuer is based in the EU, regulators can audit its books, enforce reserve rules, and shut it down if needed. Non-EU companies can’t be easily supervised. This rule forces foreign firms like Circle or Paxos to set up legal entities in the EU-like Paxos Europe in Dublin-to operate legally.
Which system is safer for users?
MiCA is designed to be safer. Its 100% reserve requirement, mandatory redemption rights, and strict issuer licensing mean users are far less likely to lose money if a stablecoin fails. The U.S. system prioritizes market growth over immediate safety, relying on Treasury backing-but if the Treasury market faces stress, the entire system could be vulnerable. MiCA’s track record during past financial stress shows far fewer failures.
Will the U.S. and EU frameworks ever align?
Possibly, but not soon. The International Organization of Securities Commissions is pushing for global standards, and 67% of regulators support harmonized reserve rules. But the U.S. wants Treasury backing; the EU wants diversified, liquid assets. These are fundamentally different goals. Until one side compromises, full alignment is unlikely.
