Crypto lending under MiCA: BTCS Strategy Advisor Wojciech Kaszycki on the EBA's plans

The European Banking Authority wants crypto lending brought under the MiCA regulation, explicitly including cases where providers give their customers access to DeFi lending protocols. That is the position in its response of September 24, 2026 to the European Commission's review of MiCA. We put three questions to Wojciech Kaszycki, Strategy Advisor at Warsaw-listed BTCS S.A. and founder of the payments company Mobilum. His short version: collateralized lending to businesses and wealthy clients fits MiCA and stays, while retail yield moves away. His test for supervisors: "If the firm can lose your money, regulate the firm. If it can't, you're regulating a website."

About the interviewee: Wojciech Kaszycki is Strategy Advisor at BTCS S.A.. The company holds bitcoin on its balance sheet; its shares trade on the NewConnect market of the Warsaw Stock Exchange under the ticker BTF and on the Frankfurt Open Market. Kaszycki founded the payments company Mobilum and chairs it. He gave his answers in writing in October 2026.

What the EBA proposes for crypto lending under MiCA

MiCA has applied in full since December 30, 2024 and covers the issuance of crypto-assets and the services of exchanges, custodians and brokers. Lending and borrowing crypto-assets is not yet one of the services that require authorization. Article 142 of the regulation only called for a stocktake, for which the EBA and ESMA delivered a joint report in January 2025. The Commission is now reviewing MiCA, and its MiCA consultation closed on September 30, 2026.

In its response to the MiCA review, the EBA recommends regulating crypto lending, including where crypto-asset service providers facilitate access to DeFi protocols. It points to earlier research showing crypto lending and borrowing in at least 16 EU member states, and notes that easy access through crypto firms and AI tools is blurring the line between centralized and decentralized finance. These are the measures it puts on the table:

The recommendation is not binding. Whether it becomes law depends on a legislative proposal from the Commission, which Parliament and Council would then negotiate.

Crypto lending in the EU: what survives and what moves offshore

CryptoTicker: If the EBA gets its way and crypto lending falls under MiCA, which part of the EU lending market actually survives and which part moves offshore?

Wojciech Kaszycki: What survives is the boring part, and the boring part is most of the money. Collateralized lending to businesses and wealthy clients, run by licensed firms that already do custody and KYC, fits MiCA easily. Banks will like this: a rulebook for Bitcoin-backed loans invites them in, and they have the balance sheets. Suitability tests and leverage caps cost them nothing because they already do that for every other product.

What moves is retail yield. The 8% on stablecoins, the leveraged loops, the "deposit and earn" buttons. Those live on DeFi front ends today, and a front end moves jurisdictions in an afternoon. We've seen this film: when MiCA's stablecoin rules landed, non-compliant tokens didn't disappear; EU users got geofenced and went to self-custody and offshore venues. The EBA says lending already happens in 16 member states. After the rules, it will still happen in 16 member states, just with a VPN. So Europe keeps the institutional book and loses the retail flow. That may be the trade the regulator wants. It should say so openly.

For context: no issuer may pay interest on stablecoins in the EU even today, article 50 of MiCA forbids it. Where a yield is shown, it comes from lending, as we explain in our piece on stablecoin interest and the MiCA ban.

What MiCA lending rules change for a listed bitcoin treasury company

CryptoTicker: BTCS put bitcoin into a yield program in March. From a listed treasury company's view, what would the lending rules change in practice about how that bitcoin is put to work?

Wojciech Kaszycki: In our case, less than people think, and that's the point. BTCS put 50 BTC into a Bitcoin L2 liquidity program in March. It's our own balance sheet, not client money, approved under a board treasury policy, every step disclosed in ESPI filings in Warsaw. MiCA regulates people who provide services to clients. We're the client. Six months later we got 51.84 BTC back, paid in bitcoin, and reported that too.

What would change is the menu. If the firms that structure these programs for institutions need a MiCA license to offer "DeFi access", the EU-based ones that stay will cost more, and the rest will stop serving EU companies. The reward leg matters as well: our program paid in BTC and USDC, and the EBA floats restricting lending that touches stablecoins that need MiCA authorization. That alone could force a redesign.

The upside: a certified protocol list would shorten the auditor conversation. Honestly, that's where we spend most of our time today, not on the trade.

The figure can be checked against the terms BTCS published in March 2026: a six-month program with 50 to 100 BTC on the Hemi network, with a minimum annualized yield of 10 percent for the first two months and 6 percent for the following four. On 50 BTC that works out as follows:

The repayment he cites therefore sits at the promised floor. For retail investors it is no benchmark: anyone who lends crypto carries the risk of the protocol and of the counterparty, and a floor only holds as far as the party promising it can pay. How such returns arise and which risks remain is covered in our guide to crypto lending, interest and risks.

Where regulating DeFi lending through its access points breaks down

CryptoTicker: Regulating DeFi through the companies that connect users to it sounds workable on paper. Where does it break down?

Wojciech Kaszycki: It breaks at the definition. "Facilitating access" sounds precise until you ask what it covers. A website? A wallet with a browser inside it? An AI agent that moves funds for you? The EBA itself admits AI tools are blurring the line, which is another way of saying the perimeter won't hold.

Second, it breaks on cost. A licensed front end carries liability for a protocol it doesn't control. So it will offer only two or three whitelisted protocols, or none. Users don't stop lending. They open the unlicensed front end or talk to the contract directly, at zero cost. You get concentration and no protection.

Third, protocol certification assumes the code stays still. It doesn't. Versions change, forks appear, and the certified one is yesterday's.

Where it does work: when the intermediary actually holds your money. Custodial "DeFi" products are just CeFi with a longer explanation, and regulating that firm is right. My test is simple. If the firm can lose your money, regulate the firm. If it can't, you're regulating a website.

What the MiCA plans for crypto lending mean for you today

As of October 21, 2026 nothing changes yet for lenders in the EU. The EBA has made a recommendation, the Commission is evaluating the consultation, and there is no legislative proposal. Kaszycki's distinction still works today as a check for any lending offer: if the provider holds your coins, you carry its default risk, and its licence matters. If it only routes you to a protocol, you carry the risk of the smart contract.

Which providers offer which terms is shown in our crypto lending comparison, and which exchanges already hold a MiCA licence in our comparison of regulated exchanges.

The MiCA review continues now that the consultation has closed, and whether lending ends up in the regulation will be decided by the Commission's proposal. You can follow the next steps from the Commission and the supervisors in the crypto news on CryptoTicker.

(As of October 21, 2026. This article is not investment advice. Crypto lending carries high risks up to a total loss; check the terms with the provider before every deposit.)