MiCA vs PSD2: Why Stablecoin Companies Need Both Licenses in Europe

Europe’s crypto industry has entered a new regulatory era under the Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) framework, but stablecoin companies looking to build payment infrastructure are discovering that MiCA alone is not enough.

According to Miguel Zapatero, General Counsel at Crossmint, firms offering end-to-end stablecoin payment services must also comply with the EU’s long-standing Payments Services Directive (PSD2).

Crossmint recently became one of only two companies in Spain to hold both MiCA authorization and a PSD2 Payment Institution license, allowing it to combine crypto services with regulated payment execution under a single compliance framework.

The distinction could shape the next phase of Europe’s stablecoin market, particularly as payment use cases become one of the sector’s fastest-growing segments.

Top Crypto Tax Accounting Software

Why MiCA and PSD2 Serve Different Purposes

While MiCA has become synonymous with crypto regulation in Europe, Zapatero argues that the framework addresses only part of the stablecoin ecosystem.

“MiCA and PSD2 are often conflated, but they cover distinctly different activity areas,” he said.

“MiCA authorizes companies to custody, exchange, and transfer crypto-assets, such as stablecoins. PSD2 authorizes companies to execute payment transactions.”

That distinction becomes critical when stablecoins move beyond trading and become payment instruments.

“Both are needed to perform many end-to-end stablecoins flows,” Zapatero explained. “For example, purchasing a stablecoin (governed by MiCA) and transferring stablecoins as a form of payment (governed by MiCA and PSD2) are two different regulated activities in the EU.”

Without PSD2 authorization, a MiCA-licensed Crypto-Asset Service Provider (CASP) must rely on a separate regulated payment institution to execute payment transactions involving electronic money tokens.

By combining both licenses, Crossmint can offer what Zapatero describes as “the full flow through a regulated counterparty: purchase and payment execution, under one compliance perimeter, passportable across all 27 member states.”

Stablecoin Firms Are Becoming Payment Companies

As stablecoins increasingly power cross-border transfers, merchant settlements, and programmable payments, Zapatero believes crypto firms will need to think beyond digital assets alone.

“Once a stablecoin is used to move money, it falls under payments law, not just crypto rules,” he told CCN.

“The rise of stablecoin payments will lead regulators to increasingly apply existing financial rules like PSD2 to govern stablecoin-related activities.”

Rather than operating solely as crypto service providers, companies entering this space may need to satisfy both regulatory regimes simultaneously.

“A firm, like Crossmint, has to operate as both a crypto-asset service provider and a payment institution at once, under one cumulative compliance perimeter,” Zapatero said.

He acknowledged that obtaining both licenses is challenging, but argued that not every crypto company needs to pursue the full regulatory stack independently. Instead, firms can partner with regulated providers that already hold the necessary authorizations.

MiCA Is Raising the Bar Across Europe

The introduction of MiCA has already reshaped the competitive environment.

According to Zapatero, only around 17% of firms that previously operated under legacy national registrations successfully secured full MiCA authorization.

He believes this reflects the regulation’s demanding standards rather than unnecessary barriers to entry.

“The market is consolidating,” he said, adding that MiCA’s requirements around governance, capital adequacy, custody segregation and consumer protection help establish trust among enterprises adopting stablecoin infrastructure.

“Regulatory clarity has become one of the strongest growth drivers in the market,” Zapatero said, noting that stablecoin capitalization has nearly doubled over the past two years.

Rather than reducing competition, he argues that the market is becoming more professional, with authorized providers competing for expanding demand while smaller firms continue to build products on regulated infrastructure.

What MiCA 2.0 Could Address Next

Although MiCA established Europe’s first comprehensive crypto framework, Zapatero believes the next version should focus on unresolved issues.

Among the priorities he highlighted are clearer rules for non-EU stablecoin issuers, interoperability with third-country regulatory regimes, tokenized deposits, protocol-level incentive mechanisms, and legal certainty for decentralized finance.

On DeFi in particular, he cautioned against treating decentralization as an absolute concept.

“Perhaps the biggest misconception is treating decentralization as a binary concept,” Zapatero said. “In practice, it exists on a spectrum.”

Instead, he argues that MiCA 2.0 should establish objective criteria to determine when a protocol retains sufficient centralized control to justify regulatory obligations, while allowing genuinely decentralized protocols to remain outside the regulatory perimeter.

Europe’s Early Regulatory Lead

With the US advancing stablecoin legislation through the GENIUS Act, comparisons between the two jurisdictions are growing.

Zapatero does not see the frameworks as competing directly.

“The US and Europe are taking different paths, not competing for the same finish line,” he said.

While GENIUS primarily focuses on stablecoin issuance, he argues MiCA creates a broader market structure that supports crypto services across the European Union.

Combined with passporting rights that allow licensed firms to serve all 27 EU member states through a single authorization, Zapatero believes Europe’s regulatory clarity gives compliant companies a significant long-term advantage as stablecoin adoption accelerates.

MiCA vs PSD2: Why Europe’s Stablecoin Industry Needs Both Regulatory Frameworks