EBA Clarifies the Interplay Between PSD2 and MiCARregarding E-money Tokens
On 10 June 2025, the European Banking Authority (EBA) published an opinion on the interplay between the payment services framework (PSD2) and the crypto-assets framework (MiCAR) regarding e-money tokens. The opinion takes the form of a No Action Letter that, on the one hand, informs national authorities how to handle e-money token transactions that may or may not require additional authorization under PSD2. On the other hand, the opinion also advises the European legislator on how to possibly fix some of the remaining issues in the currently ongoing revision of the payment services framework (PSD3/PSR).
There is a lot to process in this opinion, so in this blog post we will break down the main points.
1. What is the issue?
We previously wrote about how MiCAR distinguishes three types of crypto-assets:
Regular crypto-assets,
Asset-referenced tokens, and
E-money tokens.
E-money tokens are considered to be e-money, which puts them under a dual framework: they are governed by both MiCAR and the e-money framework (EMD2). However, since e-money also constitutes funds under PSD2, e-money tokens are also covered in part by PSD2 as well. The result is that crypto-asset service providers (CASPs) will need an authorization under MiCAR to provide their crypto-asset services. But if those services also include payment services, they may need an authorization under PSD2 as well.
This has led to quite a bit of uncertainty on the European crypto-market, as CASPs don’t really know how to proceed – or worse: how to deal with the financial and regulatory overhead of possibly having to obtain multiple authorizations.
The European Commission has caught on with this uncertainty and has instructed the EBA to issue this No Action Letter in order to instruct national regulators on how to handle this issue, at least until the legal framework can be modified.
2. What has the EBA decided?
The core argument of the EBA is that a single activity should only be regulated by one piece of financial legislation and that applying several laws to the same activity should be avoided. Especially if such would require obtaining a dual authorization, the regulatory burden would simply become disproportionate.
However, the EBA is also of the opinion that the European payments market is functioning well precisely because the framework and standards established by PSD2/EMD2. Putting transactions that essentially constitute payments outside the scope of this framework risks holding those transactions to lower standards. Therefore, the EBA is a strong advocate to include similar standards regarding consumer protection, payment security, own funds calculation, fraud reporting, etc. in MiCAR.
3. In which areas do MiCAR and PSD2 conflict?
The opinion addresses a number of different areas with potential conflict.
a. Scope and definitions
To clarify which actions regarding e-money tokens could constitute payment services under PSD2, the EBA considers the following:
A transfer of crypto-assets is a payment service if it concerns e-money tokens and if it is offered and executed by CASPs on behalf of their clients.
A custodial wallet should be considered as a payment account. As a result, the service of custody and administration of e-money tokens should be considered as a payment service under PSD2. However, the EBA advises regulators to not prioritize the enforcement of the Payment Accounts Directive to custodial wallets.
An exchange of funds for crypto-assets or between crypto-assets should not be considered as a payment service.
Intermediation by CASPs in the purchase of crypto-assets with e-money tokens should not be considered as a payment service.
b. Authorization
In terms of authorization under PSD2, the EBA advises national regulators to do the following:
In case of transfer services concerning e-money tokens, all transfer services from one wallet to another should be treated similarly, irrespective of their underlying motivation or purpose.
Consider that the purchase intermediation of crypto assets with e-money tokens does not qualify as a payment service.
PSD2 exemptions apply, and may in some cases be relevant to a CASP.
When a CASP applies for a PSD2/EMD2 authorization, rely as much as possible on information they already provided in their CASP-application. Where possible, information should be exchanged between regulators in the same jurisdiction to avoid unnecessary duplication.
The same goes the other way: if an entity is authorized under PSD2/EMD2 and still needs a CASP-authorization, the relevant information should be re-used in that procedure.
c. Initial capital and own funds
MiCAR and PSD2 each have methods to calculate the necessary initial capital and own funds in order to obtain an authorization. This gives rise to two questions:
Should both requirements apply cumulatively? The EBA believes so, as this is the approach already followed for multi-licensed entities.
Can elements satisfying the requirement under one framework also count for the other framework? No, hybrid institutions should avoid the multiple use of elements. Therefore, different elements should be used to satisfy each requirement.
d. Consumer protection
A number of the consumer protection requirements under PSD2 may prove difficult to apply to blockchain-based services. As a result, the EBA advises regulators to not prioritize the enforcement and supervision of the following:
Information requirements related to the charges payable by the user to the CASPs. This is particularly the case where certain fees are unpredictable – such as gas fees. Information should be provided to the user as soon as it is available.
Information requirement on maximum execution time of payment transactions. Also here, this may be unpredictable for on-chain transactions on congested blockchains. Again, the information should be made available as soon as possible.
The unique identifier as used in PSD2.
Apart from PSD2, also the SEPA Regulation should not be applied to transactions with e-money tokens.
e. Security of payment services, including strong customer authentication (SCA)
The EBA is of the opinion that all payment transactions should be performed under the same security standards, and that these rules – including SCA – should therefore apply to transactions with e-money tokens.
However, it is also acknowledged that it will take CASPs some time to implement these requirements. Therefore, a transitional period until 2 March 2026 is proposed for national regulators to not prioritize enforcement and supervision in this field. The same applies for the requirements regarding payment fraud reporting.
f. Safeguarding/safekeeping
PSD2 imposes safeguarding requirements, while MiCAR imposes safekeeping requirements on CASPs holding e-money tokens for their clients. The EBA advises national regulators to not enforce the PSD2’s safeguarding requirements in this case.
g. Open Banking
The EBA advises national regulators to not prioritize enforcement and supervision of the Open Banking requirements under PSD2 to CASPs providing e-money token transfer services or e-money token custody and administration. Here, the EBA specifically advises the legislator to ensure alignment with the upcoming Financial Data Access Regulation (FIDA).
4. What does this mean for me as a CASP?
The EBA’s opinion provides some much-welcomed clarity on which e-money token transactions under MiCAR may be considered as payment transactions under PSD2 and may therefore require an additional authorization. While some services are still caught in the crosshairs of these two frameworks, others will now be able to proceed knowing that they will only require a single authorization. This kind of regulatory certainty should have been present from the start, and it is regrettable that it took so long for an initiative like this to provide answers to the industry.
In terms of applying the PSD2’s requirements to CASPs, the EBA is strongly advocating an approach that would preserve the aim of ensuring a secure payment landscape, but also avoiding unnecessary duplication of regulatory burdens. It is a strong call to national regulators to apply a ‘common sense’ approach in reconciling these two frameworks, as well as a clear call for the European legislator to fix these issues in future frameworks such as PSD3/PSR or a revision of MiCAR.
Are you a CASP and do you need further guidance on this topic? Feel free to contact niels.vandezande@timelex.eu for an introductory call.
