TLDR
- ESMA plans to expand its authority over crypto platforms, clearinghouses, and exchanges across the EU.
- Verena Ross stated that centralizing supervision would improve efficiency and strengthen the EU’s global competitiveness.
- Luxembourg and Malta oppose the proposal because they fear losing control over their financial hubs.
- ESMA criticized Malta’s crypto licensing process and highlighted gaps in its risk assessments.
- The EU is considering reforms to allow ESMA to supervise large, cross-border institutions, including crypto firms.
The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) is seeking expanded powers to regulate crypto platforms, clearing houses, and exchanges across the EU. This marks a significant shift away from fragmented national oversight, as Brussels works on proposals to centralize supervision. ESMA officials argue the move will increase financial market efficiency and support the EU’s broader economic objectives.
ESMA Seeks Greater Control Over EU Markets
ESMA Chair Verena Ross confirmed that Brussels is drafting rules to shift more supervisory powers to the EU-level agency. She stated this move will better integrate the EU’s financial markets and strengthen global competitiveness. “It also means that people had to build up specific new resources and expertise 27 times,” Ross said.
While the EU currently relies on national regulators, ESMA claims this structure leads to duplication and inefficiencies. Ross emphasized that centralizing responsibilities would prevent the need for each member state to maintain identical teams. According to her, harmonized regulation would simplify the regulatory landscape for firms operating across the EU.
Ross also highlighted that building an effective capital market has been slow due to the varying structures in the 27 EU member states. ESMA was established in 2011 to enhance consistency in EU financial regulations. However, it still lacks authority over major financial institutions operating across borders.
EU Nations Divided Over Crypto Oversight Shift
Some EU countries, including Luxembourg and Malta, oppose the centralization plan, fearing impacts on their domestic financial hubs. These countries currently serve as important centers for crypto businesses and investment funds. They argue that transferring authority to ESMA could threaten their regulatory autonomy.
Claude Marx, Luxembourg’s financial regulator, said the proposal risks creating a “monster” if ESMA becomes the sole supervisor of investment funds. Malta also received criticism in July when ESMA identified flaws in its crypto licensing process. The watchdog flagged weak risk assessments in at least one firm approved under the EU license.
Despite this, ESMA remains firm on its position to lead regulation of crypto firms and exchanges. Ross noted that under the MiCA framework, assigning these duties to national regulators has delayed progress. She added that duplicating efforts across countries wastes time and resources.
EU Demand for Private Capital Spurs Regulatory Reform
The EU is under pressure to increase funding for defense, energy, and digital sectors, driving the need for unified financial oversight. Ross explained that these strategic priorities require tapping into private capital markets more efficiently. “The demand for that is so high now,” she said.
Commissioner Maria Luís Albuquerque echoed this sentiment, stating that ESMA may supervise large cross-border entities. She said governance reforms at ESMA would follow if it were to assume such responsibilities. The EU is now exploring supervision models to guide these changes.
Fintech offerings are also expanding in the EU, with tokenized stocks gaining popularity. Robinhood and Coinbase are active in this space, offering blockchain-based assets tracking of real company shares. However, ESMA warned that these products can confuse investors, as they don’t grant actual shareholder rights.
Natasha Cazenave, ESMA’s Executive Director, stated that fintech firms are utilizing complex structures to provide stock exposure through blockchain. These arrangements often involve special-purpose vehicles to back the assets. She did not disclose the names of specific firms involved.
