The public feedback window on the European Banking Authority's (EBA) draft methodology for setting fines when it directly supervises significant stablecoin issuers closes on September 28, marking the formal end of stakeholder input on how penalties will be calculated under the EU's Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) Regulation.

A Rule for a Narrow Segment of MiCA

The proposal applies only to issuers of significant asset-referenced tokens (ARTs) and e-money tokens (EMTs) that fall under direct EBA supervision. It is not a penalty schedule for the wider European crypto market.

The timing reflects a regime already in operation: MiCA entered into force in June 2023, and its rules for asset-referenced tokens and e-money tokens have applied since June 30, 2024, so the consultation shapes the enforcement mechanics for stablecoin issuers that are already subject to the regulation.

An e-money token references a single official currency, while an asset-referenced token can reference other assets or a combination of values. "Significant" status requires a separate assessment under MiCA; it is not a label automatically attached to every euro- or dollar-linked token. That classification rests on measurable criteria set out in the regulation itself — such as the number of token holders, the value of issuance, and daily transaction volumes.

Many crypto-asset service providers remain under the supervision of national authorities, with their MiCA obligations applying since December 30, 2024, while ESMA maintains the central MiCA register. Significant status can also affect reserve rules — a separate issue examined when the European Central Bank (ECB) warned about stablecoin-run risks for banks.

A Two-Step Approach to Calculating Fines

MiCA already places legal limits on fines. The EBA's draft methodology concerns the route to a number within those limits rather than inventing a new maximum: it sets a baseline and then applies adjustments.

For significant asset-referenced-token issuers, MiCA sets a maximum fine of 12.5% of annual turnover in the preceding business year. For significant e-money-token issuers, the corresponding ceiling is 10%. Where gains or avoided losses can be determined, the regulation also provides for a higher calculation based on twice that amount.

These powers operate within a broader EU legal benchmark under which penalties are expected to be effective, proportionate and dissuasive — the standard a published calculation route is meant to operationalize.

Why a Legal Maximum Does Not Make Enforcement Predictable

A ceiling tells an issuer the worst-case boundary; it does not explain how two different breaches might be treated. A short-lived reporting failure that is promptly disclosed is not the same as a prolonged breach combined with misleading information or repeated failures. The proposed methodology is intended to make those distinctions visible before a case reaches the EBA.

For the market, the value is not a guaranteed outcome. It is a clearer way to assess why one failure could draw a materially different penalty from another, and to examine the EBA's reasoning when it acts.

After September 28, the EBA Takes Over

Once the consultation closes, the EBA can assess submissions and publish a final methodology. The proposed severity categories, turnover percentages, and adjustment factors are still open to comment, so the final document may not match the draft in every respect.

As with EBA consultations generally, the contributions received are typically published once the window closes unless respondents request confidentiality, which will make the substance of the industry's feedback visible while the final text is still being prepared.

From that point, firms and other stakeholders lose their formal chance to influence the calculation framework before it is finalized. Direct supervision, fines, and individual enforcement findings would still follow their own legal process.

A Final Document That Makes EBA Discretion Easier to Test

MiCA already sets out who may issue certain crypto-assets and what issuers must disclose. The unresolved question is how the EBA will calculate a penalty when a significant issuer fails to meet those rules. The final methodology should make that reasoning clearer before the first major enforcement case tests it.

This article is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal, financial, or investment advice. The EBA consultation is not a final methodology, and MiCA enforcement responsibilities vary by entity and authority.