Vixio’s Verdict: MiCA and PSD2 – EBA Provides More Clarity, But Regulatory Stability Remains A Work in Progress

On February 12, 2026, the European Banking Authority (EBA) published an opinion advising national competent authorities (NCAs) on how to proceed once the transition period set out in the EBA’s June 2025 no-action letter (NAL) comes to an end on March 2, 2026. 

As a recap, on June 10, 2025, the EBA published a NAL on the interplay between Directive (EU) 2015/2366 (revised Payment Services Directive – PSD2) and Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 (Markets in Crypto-Assets – MiCA).

In the letter the EBA clarified that, although a significant number of CASPs transacting in electronic money tokens (EMTs) will need only a MiCA authorisation, certain EMT-related services will require dual authorisation under PSD2. 

Consequently, the EBA advised NCAs to grant CASPs a transition period until March 1, 2026 before PSD2 authorisation is required. Vixio examined the implications of this letter in a two-part Regulatory Influencer:

• Regulatory Influencer: Examining the EBA’s No-Action Letter on PSD2 and MiCA (Part One).
• Regulatory Influencer: Examining the EBA’s No-Action Letter on PSD2 and MiCA (Part Two) - Authorisation and Regulatory Overlap.

The EBA’s Opinion

It is evident that the EBA’s NAL has had a significant market impact. According to the EBA, more than 100 CASPs have either informally approached their NCAs or formally submitted an application for authorisation as a payment service provider (PSP) following publication of the NAL.

Against this background, the EBA identified three possible scenarios that may apply to a CASP under MiCA once the transition period expires.

Scenario 1 – Authorised or Partnered Structure

The CASP has successfully obtained authorisation as a payment institution (PI) or electronic money institution (EMI), or has entered into a partnership with a PSP authorised to provide the relevant payment services.

In this case, the CASP may continue carrying out electronic money token (EMT) transactions to the extent permitted under:

• Its own PI/EMI authorisation.
• The authorisation of its partner PSP.

Scenario 2 – Application Submitted but Authorisation Pending

The CASP has formally submitted an application for authorisation as a PI or EMI but has not yet received a decision.

In this situation, the EBA advises that the competent authority under PSD2 may allow the CASP to continue providing EMT transactions that qualify as payment services, including on a cross-border basis, pending a decision, provided that all of the following conditions are satisfied:

1. The application has been formally submitted to the NCA and includes all required documentation under PSD2 and the relevant EBA Guidelines.
2. The applicant responds to NCA requests in a complete, transparent and timely manner.
3. The NCA has verified that the applicant is not subject to material infringements or supervisory measures under MiCA, anti-money laundering (AML) legislation or other applicable EU law.
4. Based on a preliminary assessment, the NCA has no grounds to consider that the applicant will be unable to comply with PSD2 and has reasonable expectations that authorisation will be granted within a short timeframe.

Where an NCA permits continued activity under this scenario, it is advised to impose interim restrictions. Pending the outcome of the authorisation process, the CASP should:

1. Cease all marketing activities relating to EMTs that qualify as payment services.
2. Refrain from providing EMT-related payment services to new clients.

Of note, these restrictions do not apply to CASPs that are permitted under national law to continue providing services until July 1, 2026, or until they are granted or refused authorisation pursuant to Article 63 of MiCA, whichever occurs earlier.

Scenario 3 – No Valid Application

The CASP has either:

• Not submitted an application for authorisation.
• Submitted an application that does not meet one or more of the conditions outlined under Scenario 2.

In this case, the EBA advises that, as of March 2, 2026, the competent authority should require the CASP to:

• Cease providing EMT services that qualify as payment services under PSD2.
• Offboard clients receiving such EMT-related payment services.

Vixio’s Verdict 

Given the regulatory and operational complexity that comes with dual authorisation, as well as the practical consequences for a significant number of CASPs, the opinion provides needed clarification on the regulatory position that will apply post March 1, 2026. 

However, the EBA’s interpretation of what qualifies as a payment service is particularly noteworthy. Specifically, the EBA reiterated two positions:

• The execution of transfers involving EMTs may qualify as a payment service irrespective of whether the custodial wallets provided by the CASP constitute payment accounts.
• First-party transfers of EMTs may still amount to payment transactions and therefore fall within the scope of PSD2.

These clarifications broaden the circumstances in which an EMT-related activity may trigger authorisation requirements under PSD2, reinforcing the practical reach of dual regulation.

The EBA further advised that “NCAs are to assess whether the partner PSP requires authorisation under Article 59 MiCA”. This statement is particularly consequential for partnered models, which may face greater supervisory scrutiny as a direct consequence of the opinion. 

Although these positions are largely a restatement of the stance the EBA took in its NAL, it underscores the nature of the issue: dual authorisation for CASPs engaging in EMT  transactions, whether incidentally or not, will persist at least until the adoption and application of PSD3/PSR.

Moreover, on the question of PSD3/PSR, the opinion is silent. In the original NAL, the EBA proposed two potential solutions: 

• Amending MiCA through the PSD3/PSR legislative process to introduce specific requirements for crypto-asset services involving EMTs that qualify as payment services.
• Clarifying within PSD3 and the PSR themselves which EMT-related services fall within their scope and how those rules would apply.

However, the Council of the European Union’s revised draft texts of June 13, 2025 (Regulation) (Directive) introduce important recital amendments. Notably, amended Recital 16 of PSD3 states that:

• The custody and administration of crypto-assets on behalf of clients (as defined in MiCA) does not, in itself, constitute a payment service.
• Transactions where EMTs are used as collateral for financial instruments transactions do not constitute a payment service.
• The placing of crypto-assets does not, by itself, amount to a payment service.

These recitals appear to narrow the potential overlap between MiCA and PSD2/PSD3.

Although the EBA’s opinion, by its nature, could not resolve the divergence between its proposed legislative solutions and the Council’s drafting approach, the lack of alignment leaves uncertainty for firms structuring their long-term compliance models.

Notwithstanding these unresolved legislative questions, the EBA’s opinion provides meaningful operational clarity for firms navigating the interaction between PSD2 and MiCA in the interim period.

Compliance under both regimes is no longer theoretical or interpretative. For many CASPs, it now requires concrete authorisation strategies, structural adjustments and supervisory engagement.

At the same time, the opinion’s temporal scope, covering the period from the NAL’s publication in June 2025 until the eventual application of PSD3/PSR, means that the current framework is merely transitional. 

Firms operating in this space must therefore plan not only for dual authorisation under the existing regime, but also for potentially significant recalibration once the final PSD3/PSR texts are adopted.

In short, clarity has improved, but regulatory stability remains a work in progress.