Nothing on this page is law — that is the point of it. A rule still in draft is the only kind you can still shape. Here is where each one sits tonight, which doors are open, and how long doors like them have stayed open before.
The registry behind this page tracks 111 instruments: 41 at law stages, 55 issued as guidance or supervisory material, 15 still in flight or unissued — counted from the registry at build, as at 2026-08-26.
Where in the journey can you still act?
Most of what circulates about MiCA quietly describes drafts as if they were law. You are going to be immune to that in about four minutes. A rule is born as a consultationThe stage where a draft law or rule is published for comment before it is adopted. In Switzerland: Vernehmlassung for statutes, Anhörung for regulators' rules., grows up as a draft in a final reportThe document in which ESMA or the EBA answers the consultation and hands its final draft to the Commission. The draft inside it is settled — but it is still not law., and becomes law only when the Commission adopts it, scrutiny passes, and the Official Journal prints it — because ESMAThe European Securities and Markets Authority — the EU-level supervisor that drafts most of MiCA's detailed rules and keeps its registers. It drafts; the Commission adopts. and the EBAThe European Banking Authority — ESMA's banking-side sibling, responsible for MiCA's stablecoin rulebook. It drafts; the Commission adopts. draft, and cannot themselves make law. At every stage before the last there is something you can still do about it. The door chips on each stage say what, and for how long.
A completed journey — the CASP-authorisation RTS
One instrument, twenty-one months, five stages. The stage, not the document, decides what a citation is worth — and the stage comes from the practice’s instrument registry, never from memory.
Consultation
not law
ESMA consults
The Level-2 programme opens in public: ESMA Consultation Paper, MiCA first package (ESMA74-449133380-425).
Open door — answer the consultationThe paper names its own deadline: this one ran 12 Jul – 20 Sep 2023, seventy days.
Final report — draft standard
not law
ESMA delivers a draft to the Commission
The substance now exists in full — as a proposal. It binds no one. Citing it as “the RTS” without a stage label is the error this stepper exists to prevent.
Door ajar — the file is with the CommissionNo fixed clock: adoption timing is the corpus's largest variable. Associations keep engaging; the feedback tables show answers landing months after the deadline.
Adopted
not law
The Commission adopts (Art 290 TFEU)
Now a Commission act — but a delegated act must still survive the Parliament and Council scrutiny period before it can be published.
Last formal stop — Parliament and CouncilNot a firm-side lever. Observed from the held corpus: no MiCA delegated act reached the OJ in under 98 days from adoption; implementing acts have done it in one.
Published in the Official Journal
law
Scrutiny passed; the OJ publishes
Five months between adoption and publication here — the scrutiny step, invisible inside any single document, made visible by the dates.
Door shut — complyWhat remains is the Q&A route and the review reports.
In force · applies
law
The act binds
Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/305 — from this date an application file is assessed against the regulation, cited by article and OJ reference.
Comply — and evidence itInterpretive doubt goes to the Q&A machine; regime change goes to the Art 140 review.
A caveat carried from the practice’s own working: the observed 98-day floor measures elapsed time from adoption to publication, which bundles translation and lawyer-linguist work with scrutiny. It is an observation from the held corpus, not a citation of the scrutiny period itself.
And one that has not — the reserve-liquidity ladder
The 40%-at-one-working-day / 60%-at-five ladder for asset-referenced-token reserves lives in Draft RTS further specifying the liquidity requirements of the reserve of assets, Art 36(4) (EBA/RTS/2024/10) — delivered 13 Jun 2024, and still a draft, not adopted as a Commission regulation as at 26 Aug 2026 (the registry’s last verification). It has sat at stage two of the five for over two years — stuck behind the door-ajar stage: the file is with the Commission, which proposed amendments the EBA answered by Opinion. A briefing that renders those percentages as an obligation is wrong today — and would have to change the day the Official Journal speaks. Its full card, arguments and all, is in the playground below.
The levers, and who can pull them
Five ways to act on a rule before — and after — it hardens. Each row names who can pull the lever, when the door opens, and how long doors like it have demonstrably stayed open, with the held proof underneath. What no row does is tell you what to argue: that is your file, not this page.
The lever
Who can pull it
When the door opens
How long it stays open
Answer the consultation
Anyone — a compliance officer with a worked example, a firm, an association, an individual. The response form is on the consultation page.
While a consultation paper is open — the one stage where the text is explicitly up for argument.
The paper names its own deadline on the cover. The first MiCA package ran 12 July to 20 September 2023 — seventy days. Miss it and your argument waits for the next instrument.Proof: The held first-package CP states 'ESMA will consider all comments received by 20 September 2023' on its cover pages; the held AMLA monitoring CP shows the mechanics — a respond button and a dated deadline.
ESMA Consultation Paper, MiCA first package (ESMA74-449133380-425) · consultation stage — nothing is law · verified 2026-08-26 · Read the text ↗
Respond through a trade association
A firm that would rather not argue alone — associations aggregate members' positions and file under their own name.
Same door as the consultation response, and informally afterwards while the authority drafts its final report.
The consultation window, plus whatever engagement the authority entertains before its final report — the feedback tables show association positions being answered months after the deadline.Proof: The reserve-liquidity final report's summary-of-responses table attributes positions to industry bodies and records what the EBA changed in answer — the bank-concentration limits were loosened because of exactly this channel.
Draft RTS further specifying the liquidity requirements of the reserve of assets, Art 36(4) (EBA/RTS/2024/10) · draft — not yet adopted · verified 2026-08-26 · Read the text ↗
The scrutiny stop (know it; you do not pull it)
The European Parliament and the Council — not firms. It is on this list so you can time everything else around it.
After the Commission adopts a delegated act, before the Official Journal publishes it.
Observed from the held corpus: no delegated act under MiCA reached the Official Journal in fewer than 98 days from adoption; implementing acts have done it in one. The gap is the institutions' pause — and your last stretch of certainty that the text you read is the text that will apply.Proof: Computed across every held delegated act's adopted/OJ date pair (registry sweep). Caveat carried from the practice's own working: publication timing bundles translation and lawyer-linguist work with scrutiny, so the floor is an observation about elapsed time, not a citation of the scrutiny period itself.
Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/305 · applicable — this binds · verified 2026-08-26 · Read the text ↗
Ask the question formally — the Q&A route
Anyone, once a rule is law and the doubt is about what it means. Submissions go through the authority's Q&A tool; answers publish for everyone.
After application — the standing door that never closes.
Open-ended. The machine demonstrably runs: the practice's export of the ESMA Q&A tool holds 49 answered MiCA questions.Proof: The held ESMA Q&A export — 49 MiCA questions and answers as at the export date — is the proof the route produces public answers.
ESMA Questions and Answers on MiCA (Q&A tool export, 49 Q&As) · issued guidelines — comply-or-explain, binding authorities rather than firms · verified 2026-08-26 · Read the text ↗
Aim at the review
Firms and associations with evidence of how the regime works in practice — the review reports are where the Level-1 text itself can reopen.
On the Commission's MiCA review cycle under Articles 140–142, and whenever an instrument's own text promises re-examination.
Cycle-long. Respondents already use it: in the reserve-liquidity consultation, industry pointed the EBA at the Article 140 report as the vehicle for keeping the interlocking liquidity standards under review.Proof: The reserve-liquidity final report's general-comments row records respondents invoking the Article 140 report by name — the lever being pulled, on the record.
Draft RTS further specifying the liquidity requirements of the reserve of assets, Art 36(4) (EBA/RTS/2024/10) · draft — not yet adopted · verified 2026-08-26 · Read the text ↗
Answer the consultation
Who
Anyone — a compliance officer with a worked example, a firm, an association, an individual. The response form is on the consultation page.
When
While a consultation paper is open — the one stage where the text is explicitly up for argument.
Window
The paper names its own deadline on the cover. The first MiCA package ran 12 July to 20 September 2023 — seventy days. Miss it and your argument waits for the next instrument.
Proof: The held first-package CP states 'ESMA will consider all comments received by 20 September 2023' on its cover pages; the held AMLA monitoring CP shows the mechanics — a respond button and a dated deadline.
Respond through a trade association
Who
A firm that would rather not argue alone — associations aggregate members' positions and file under their own name.
When
Same door as the consultation response, and informally afterwards while the authority drafts its final report.
Window
The consultation window, plus whatever engagement the authority entertains before its final report — the feedback tables show association positions being answered months after the deadline.
Proof: The reserve-liquidity final report's summary-of-responses table attributes positions to industry bodies and records what the EBA changed in answer — the bank-concentration limits were loosened because of exactly this channel.
The scrutiny stop (know it; you do not pull it)
Who
The European Parliament and the Council — not firms. It is on this list so you can time everything else around it.
When
After the Commission adopts a delegated act, before the Official Journal publishes it.
Window
Observed from the held corpus: no delegated act under MiCA reached the Official Journal in fewer than 98 days from adoption; implementing acts have done it in one. The gap is the institutions' pause — and your last stretch of certainty that the text you read is the text that will apply.
Proof: Computed across every held delegated act's adopted/OJ date pair (registry sweep). Caveat carried from the practice's own working: publication timing bundles translation and lawyer-linguist work with scrutiny, so the floor is an observation about elapsed time, not a citation of the scrutiny period itself.
Ask the question formally — the Q&A route
Who
Anyone, once a rule is law and the doubt is about what it means. Submissions go through the authority's Q&A tool; answers publish for everyone.
When
After application — the standing door that never closes.
Window
Open-ended. The machine demonstrably runs: the practice's export of the ESMA Q&A tool holds 49 answered MiCA questions.
Proof: The held ESMA Q&A export — 49 MiCA questions and answers as at the export date — is the proof the route produces public answers.
Aim at the review
Who
Firms and associations with evidence of how the regime works in practice — the review reports are where the Level-1 text itself can reopen.
When
On the Commission's MiCA review cycle under Articles 140–142, and whenever an instrument's own text promises re-examination.
Window
Cycle-long. Respondents already use it: in the reserve-liquidity consultation, industry pointed the EBA at the Article 140 report as the vehicle for keeping the interlocking liquidity standards under review.
Proof: The reserve-liquidity final report's general-comments row records respondents invoking the Article 140 report by name — the lever being pulled, on the record.
So what— Put the consultationThe stage where a draft law or rule is published for comment before it is adopted. In Switzerland: Vernehmlassung for statutes, Anhörung for regulators' rules. calendar on the same footing as the compliance calendar: one owner, one review a quarter, one decision per open paper — respond, join an association response, or pass on the record.
When readings collide — where interpretive doubt goes
Two teams read one provision and land in different places. That is normal in a young regime, and the machinery has addresses for it — in this order:
The Q&A machine. Anyone can submit an interpretive question through the authorities’ Q&A tool; answers publish for everyone. It demonstrably runs — the practice’s export of the tool holds 49 answered MiCA questions. Ask formally before you assume; an answer you receive is an answer your counterparty receives too.
Your supervisor’s door. Every authority publishes a contact point for its regime — both supervisors worked on the operations page name theirs on the face of their forms and process pages. A documented question to your NCA is itself evidence of diligence, whatever the answer.
The convergence layer. Where national authorities themselves diverge, ESMA’s convergence instruments — opinions, peer pressure, the guidelines machinery — exist to pull readings together, and the compliance tables show which authorities have declared they follow which guidelines. Check your authority’s declaration before assuming a guideline reads the same in two member states.
The long route. Binding interpretation of Union law ends at the Court of Justice, reached through national proceedings. For a regime this young, expect the first answers to arrive years behind the questions — which is why the three addresses above carry the near-term weight.
So what— When two readings collide in your firm, write both down, pick the stricter for now, and put the question to the Q&A tool the same week. The file note is the control; the submission is the lever.
the Q&A machine, evidenced · ESMA Questions and Answers on MiCA (Q&A tool export, 49 Q&As) · issued guidelines — comply-or-explain, binding authorities rather than firms · verified 2026-08-26 · Read the text ↗
the convergence layer, evidenced · ESMA Opinion to support the convergent application of MiCA (ESMA75-453128700-1048) · issued guidelines — comply-or-explain, binding authorities rather than firms · verified 2026-08-26 · Read the text ↗
The drafts, one card each — clearly not law
Every card below is an instrument that binds no one tonight. Each shows what the draft would require, the case made for it and against it in the consultationThe stage where a draft law or rule is published for comment before it is adopted. In Switzerland: Vernehmlassung for statutes, Anhörung for regulators' rules. record — the parties’ arguments, not ours — where the file sits, and which doors are still open. When a card’s instrument becomes law, the build of this site fails until the card is retired: a draft cannot silently turn into an obligation here.
Draft — not law · draft — not yet adopted · checked 2026-08-26
Draft RTS further specifying the liquidity requirements of the reserve of assets, Art 36(4) (EBA/RTS/2024/10)
It would fix how liquid a stablecoinA token designed to track a currency, run by an issuer who can typically freeze balances — e.g. USDT or USDC. issuer's reserve must be: minimum deposits with banks per official currency, creditworthiness and concentration limits on those banks, and an over-collateralisation add-on calibrated from five years of daily market-value history.
The arguments below are the consultation record, summarised — the parties' own cases and the authority's answers, not this site's view of what the law should be.
The case made for it
the EBA, choosing its policy option 1:A single harmonised historical-lookback approach lets every issuer and supervisor run the same calculation, and one-day observation windows stop new issuances mid-window from distorting the comparison.
the EBA's cost-benefit analysis:The approach reflects each token's own specifics — type, assets referenced, complexity, size — rather than one number for everyone, and stays reviewable by supervisors.
The case made against it
many respondents:Larger credit institutions are unwilling to take deposits from token issuers, so strict per-bank concentration limits would push reserves toward exactly the banks least prepared to fund redemptions under stress.
a couple of respondents:The Level-2 timetable was too compressed to guarantee consistency across the interlocking liquidity instruments, and the whole set needs ongoing review — several pointed at the Article 140 report as the vehicle.
the EBA's own cons column, weighing its options:A fixed calibration risks procyclicality and rests on thin historical data for young tokens.
Resolution so farThe EBA loosened the deposit-diversification minimums — expressly to answer the bank-unwillingness point — recalibrated the over-collateralisation lookback to within-day comparisons, and added a duty to talk to the supervisor before unwinding a breach. It delivered the draft in June 2024; the Commission proposed amendments and the EBA answered by Opinion. The file remains a draft.
No public window is running — the consultation closed 8 February 2024 (10 responses, 7 published) and the file sits between the EBA and the Commission. The next formal opening is whatever the Commission adopts, or the Article 140 review.
In the boardroomIf adopted near its current shape, reserve management becomes a daily data operation with named bank counterparties — a treasury build, not a policy document.
Draft — not law · draft — not yet adopted · checked 2026-08-26
Draft RTS on highly liquid financial instruments, Art 38(5) (EBA/RTS/2024/11)
It would name which financial instruments count as 'highly liquid' for a stablecoinA token designed to track a currency, run by an issuer who can typically freeze balances — e.g. USDT or USDC. reserve's investments — instruments liquidatable rapidly with minimal adverse price effect, so redemption requests can be met at any time, including under stress.
The arguments below are the consultation record, summarised — the parties' own cases and the authority's answers, not this site's view of what the law should be.
The case made for it
the EBA's executive summary, stating the mandate's purpose:Issuers investing reserve proceeds need a closed, supervisable list of what qualifies; leaving 'highly liquid' undefined would make every reserve audit an argument.
The case made against it
respondents to the paired consultation:The same compressed-timeline and cross-instrument consistency concerns raised on the reserve-liquidity draft apply to this one — the two standards interlock and were consulted as a pair.
Resolution so farDelivered to the Commission in June 2024 alongside the reserve-liquidity draft. Not adopted; the file remains a draft.
No public window is running — the consultation is closed and the file is with the Commission.
In the boardroomIf adopted, the reserve's investment universe is fixed by regulation — portfolio latitude becomes a compliance question, not an investment one.
Draft — not law · issued guidelines — comply-or-explain, binding authorities rather than firms · checked 2026-08-27
ESMA Guidelines for the criteria on the assessment of knowledge and competence under MiCA (final report ESMA35-1872330276-2380)
It would set the floor for what the people giving crypto-asset advice must know: minimum qualification hours, experience, and annual upkeep — the MiFID II knowledge-and-competence idea, rebuilt for CASPsCrypto-asset service provider — a firm authorised under MiCA to provide one or more of the ten listed crypto-asset services in the EU. One home-state authorisation covers the whole Union..
The arguments below are the consultation record, summarised — the parties' own cases and the authority's answers, not this site's view of what the law should be.
The case made for it
most respondents and the SMSG:Most respondents, including ESMA's own stakeholder group, agreed staff giving advice on crypto-assets need a defined competence floor before they face clients.
The case made against it
several respondents, pulling in both directions:Eighty hours of professional qualification is the wrong number — some argued it overshoots for narrow roles, others that it undershoots for a market this novel.
Resolution so farESMA answered the consultation and adopted the guidelines in its final report of 11 July 2025. The standalone guidelines and their translations are not yet published, so the comply-or-explain clock has not started — the one instrument on this page that is finished but not yet running.
The drafting window is closed. What remains open is the implementation layer: national authorities declare compliance only once translations publish and the clock starts.
In the boardroomWhen the clock starts, every advice-giving hire needs a competence file — training budget and records, owned by someone.
Nothing issued — not law · not yet issued · checked 2026-08-26
Common reference parameters of stress-test scenarios, Art 45 (guidelines mandate)
Nothing yet — this is a mandate with nothing issued. MiCA asks for guidelinesA supervisory authority's published position on how rules should be applied. EU guidelines bind authorities on a comply-or-explain basis — they are not themselves the law. on the common reference parameters of stress-test scenarios for significant stablecoinA token designed to track a currency, run by an issuer who can typically freeze balances — e.g. USDT or USDC. issuers, and no instrument has appeared.
The next consultation is the door — a mandate with nothing issued means the drafting argument has not started, which is the one moment a first submission shapes the frame rather than amends it.
In the boardroomA significant issuer's stress-testing programme will one day be marked against parameters that do not exist yet. Whoever answers that consultation first frames it.
Nothing issued — not law · not yet issued · checked 2026-08-26
Joint ESAs guidelines on the content and form of crypto-asset classification explanations, Art 97 (guidelines mandate)
Nothing yet — the second nil mandate. Article 97 asks the three European authorities jointly for guidelinesA supervisory authority's published position on how rules should be applied. EU guidelines bind authorities on a comply-or-explain basis — they are not themselves the law. on the content and form of the classification explanations that accompany white papersThe disclosure document MiCA requires before most crypto-assets are offered to the public or admitted to trading — contents prescribed, liability attached, notified to the regulator., and no instrument has appeared.
The next consultation is the door. Classification explanations are being written today without the template this mandate will eventually impose — early respondents get to argue from lived files.
In the boardroomEvery white paper your firm touches carries a classification explanation that this future instrument will standardise — retrofit cost lands on whoever wrote them freestyle.
Adjacent regimes are consulting too — AMLA’s ongoing-monitoring guidelines consultation is open to 3 September 2026 (the paper is held and logged). Outside MiCA; tracked, not taught here.
As at 2026-08-26: adoption statuses from the registry’s EUR-Lex sweep; observed durations computed from the held acts’ own date pairs; consultation windows from the held papers’ own covers. Nothing on this page is an obligation.