The European Parliament’s Economic Affairs Committee has urged the European Commission to assess whether crypto lending and borrowing, staking, non-fungible tokens and decentralized finance should be brought under regulation, a signal that the next phase of EU crypto policy could extend deep into the yield-generating core of the industry.
The recommendations were part of a report brought forward Friday for a plenary vote. The report also called for promoting tokenization across financial services, encouraging euro-denominated stablecoins, and assessing whether additional crypto activities should be regulated under the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation, known as MiCA.
Drafted by Belgian Member of the European Parliament Johan Van Overtveldt, the document is an own-initiative resolution by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, or ECON, that outlines recommendations for the Commission on digital asset regulation. It will next go before the European Parliament in a vote expected July 6. If adopted, the resolution would become Parliament’s official position on digital assets policy, though it would not amend MiCA or create new legal obligations.
Why staking is in the frame
For staking operators and their users, the report is the clearest indication yet that Brussels intends to close the gap MiCA left open. The current framework regulates crypto asset service providers, issuers, and exchanges, but staking services, where users delegate tokens to validators in exchange for rewards, sit largely outside its scope.
That omission has practical consequences. Staking rewards are a foundational yield component for institutional custody offerings and retail platforms alike, and the absence of EU-level rules has produced uneven treatment across member states. Some jurisdictions have tolerated staking products through licensing interpretations; others have pushed providers to restrict them. An ECON-backed push to assess staking regulation could finally standardize the activity across the bloc, with significant implications for validator economics, custody providers, and liquid staking protocols.
The Commission is already moving in parallel. In May it launched a public consultation seeking feedback on whether the MiCA framework should be expanded to cover DeFi, staking, lending, NFTs and tokenized financial assets, while also reopening debate over the regulation’s ban on interest-bearing stablecoins.
A warming stance on stablecoins
The recommendations also reflect an evolving view of stablecoins among policymakers. Days after former Bank for International Settlements general manager Agustín Carstens, a longtime crypto critic, softened his stance on stablecoins, the report welcomed euro-denominated stablecoins under MiCA and encouraged their development to support the bloc’s payment sector.
The report argued that euro-denominated stablecoins could complement tokenized commercial bank deposits and wholesale central bank digital currencies while enabling faster and cheaper cross-border payments. It added that broader adoption could strengthen the competitiveness of EU financial markets and the international role of the euro.
The shift is notable given the report’s author. In 2023, Van Overtveldt called for tighter restrictions on cryptocurrencies following the banking turmoil surrounding Silicon Valley Bank, Signature Bank and Silvergate Bank. That crisis was closely tied to stablecoins, as USDC issuer Circle held roughly 3.3 billion USD of its reserves at Silicon Valley Bank when it collapsed, briefly causing USDC to lose its dollar peg.
The stance aligns with ECON’s broader vision for Europe’s digital money ecosystem. On Tuesday, the committee backed legislation for a digital euro, with lawmakers arguing that public and private forms of digital money should coexist rather than compete.
Looking beyond MiCA’s current scope
Van Overtveldt first presented a draft of the report in February before months of negotiations and amendments by ECON members. The earlier version largely focused on MiCA’s existing framework, including stablecoin classifications and legal certainty for multi-issued stablecoins.
The committee-approved report urged consistent application of MiCA across the EU to preserve a level playing field for crypto firms. It also warned member states against introducing national requirements beyond MiCA that could fragment the bloc’s digital asset industry, a warning aimed squarely at the patchwork of national add-ons that have frustrated cross-border operators.
Meanwhile, MiCA’s transitional period ends July 1, after which crypto asset service providers generally must hold authorization under the regulation to continue operating across the EU. The combination of a hard licensing deadline and an active review of scope expansion means European operators face a compliance double front: meeting today’s rules while preparing for a broader regime that could capture staking, lending, DeFi and NFT activity.
What it means for the industry
For staking-focused firms, the immediate read is cautious optimism. Regulation brings cost and constraint, but it also brings certainty, and certainty is what has kept institutional staking flows in jurisdictions with clear rules. An EU framework could unlock bank-grade staking products currently stalled in legal review, while imposing capital, disclosure, and operational standards on validator infrastructure.
The report’s sequencing also matters. By pairing scope expansion with support for tokenization and euro stablecoins, ECON is framing the next round of crypto rules as market-building rather than market-restricting. Whether the Commission’s eventual proposal preserves that balance will define the European staking landscape for the rest of the decade.
Market context at writing: BTC traded near 80,925 USD and ETH near 2,493 USD per the 17:00 UTC snapshot referenced across today’s coverage.
Van Overtveldt has been pushing this line for years. Extending MiCA to staking and DeFi means every EU validator and liquidity pool suddenly needs a compliance layer.
He has been on this since the 2023 DeFi report. The difference now is the euro stablecoin clause gives banks a reason to cheer instead of lobby against it.
the july 6 vote is parliament nudging the commission to study stuff, no actual law yet. still, euro stablecoin push plus defi rules in one report tells you where this is heading
own-initiative means zero binding force, true, but the commission loves borrowing parliament cover for the next draft. mica itself grew out of exactly this kind of resolution
own-initiative reports are how mica itself started tho. a non binding july vote is the commission drafting its next proposal by other means
true, but those early MiCA reports took three years to become law. pace matters and this parliament is slower than the last one
every MiCA extension so far pushed activity offshore first and regulated it never. staking rules will run the same pattern with new paperwork
Every cycle regulators discover DeFi exists and act surprised. MiCA already pushed some exchanges out of the EU, now they want the protocols themselves.
exchanges can leave, protocols physically cant relocate. good luck regulating an immutable AMM, the bytecode does not attend ECON hearings
the bytecode line is great but dont sleep on the frontend angle. regulators cant move the contract, they can absolutely chase interface operators
van overtveldt drafting this tells you the staking clause is the real payload. banks got their custody rules, validators are next on the compliance assembly line
staking is the clause that matters. if validator services become regulated financial services under an extended mica, EU pools relocate to singapore before the ink dries
validators as regulated services would swallow liquid staking tokens too. every lst issuer re-domiciling at once is a fun image
relocating to singapore only works until your EU users get geo-blocked. ask the exchanges how mica sequencing went, same movie with a sequel number
singapore relocation is already happening, most liquid staking teams incorporated there or in zug years ago. the EU will end up regulating an empty room
the room isnt empty, its just denominated in something other than compliance. LST flows routed through non-eu fronts still land on european screens lol
zug incorporation worked when the rules were vague. once EU users get geo-blocked the singapore office is just a mailing address with better weather
if staking services become regulated the pools route through non-EU operators, same shuffle the exchanges did. brussels regulates the front door and everyone walks through the window
everyone fixated on the defi bit and skipping the euro stablecoin push in the same report. a regulated euro settlement asset is the actual endgame here
NFT regulation in 2026, two years after the volume died. they’ll spend 18 months consulting on jpeg custody lol
eighteen months on jpeg custody while the euro stablecoin clause sits right there in the same report. priorities fully backwards
meanwhile the euro stablecoin clause is the one item that could actually matter and it gets a single paragraph
jpeg custody consultations while the euro stablecoin clause gets one paragraph tells you who lobbies hardest in brussels. banks protecting settlement, not collectors
july 6 vote, then a commission consultation, then a draft, then trilogue. euro stablecoin rules by 2029 at this pace