ESMA Calls for Advertising Rules on Crypto Influencers: Six Changes Now Sitting With the EU Commission

The European securities watchdog ESMA submitted its response to the review of the crypto regulation MiCA to the EU Commission on September 30, 2026. In it the authority calls for, among other things, stricter advertising rules where crypto assets are promoted by influencers, disclosure duties for staking, lending and borrowing, and the power to shut down fraudulent websites and to freeze crypto assets.

None of it applies today. These are recommendations from an authority to the legislator, submitted on the final day of a consultation. This piece sets out what ESMA specifically demands, which of the points would affect your crypto account in Europe, and how long the road is from this paper to binding law.

The submission of September 30: ESMA answers the EU Commission

The EU Commission opened a targeted consultation on the review of MiCA over the summer, asking where the regulation should be improved. The deadline ran out on September 30, 2026, at 23:59 Central European Summer Time. What the Commission had asked we wrote up in the article on the MiCA review and the proposed changes; the deadline itself was the subject of our piece on the consultation and its submission date.

On the last day ESMA filed its answer, a 16-page document with the reference ESMA75-113276571-1721. The authority summarises its aim itself as follows: simplify the framework, improve investor protection and capture new business models such as decentralised finance applications, staking, lending and borrowing.

MiCA is the EU regulation on markets in crypto assets. Since 2024 the regulation has governed step by step who may trade, hold in custody and issue crypto assets in the EU, and it applies directly in Germany, where BaFin grants the authorisations. What duties follow from it for providers is set out in our overview of the MiCA licence.

Advertising by crypto influencers: stricter rules for third parties

The first block of the response concerns investor protection. ESMA proposes stricter requirements for the marketing of crypto assets, explicitly where these are promoted by influencers and other third parties. Today MiCA bites above all at the authorised providers themselves. Anyone advertising a token as a third party often falls through the net in practice.

Alongside that demand the authority names more transparency on costs. Both aim at the same point: whoever makes a purchase decision should know beforehand what it costs and who was paid for the recommendation.

For a reader this is the part with the most immediate bearing on everyday life. If it came in this form, paid posts about individual tokens would have to be more clearly recognisable as advertising, including where the sender is not an authorised provider but a single person.

Staking, lending and borrowing: disclosure before the investment

The second point concerns services MiCA has so far covered only at the margins. ESMA calls for proportionate requirements for staking, lending and borrowing, explicitly including disclosure duties. Named in that context are costs, risks, returns, collateralisation and possible losses, and all of it before an investment decision is taken.

Staking means depositing tokens for the operation of a blockchain and receiving a reward for it. Lending means lending out crypto assets against interest; borrowing is the other direction, taking them up against collateral. The three services differ considerably in risk but are often offered side by side in the interfaces of trading venues.

How things stand in Germany today, which providers need an authorisation and how returns are treated for tax we set out in the piece on staking under MiCA. The ESMA demand would change nothing about the tax there, but it would change what a provider has to give you in writing in advance.

A new licensed service for access to DeFi protocols

The third block is the furthest reaching. ESMA suggests setting clearer criteria for when an activity actually counts as decentralised. In addition it recommends creating a new licensable crypto service: for firms that give users access to DeFi protocols.

DeFi stands for decentralised finance applications, meaning trading, lending or derivatives through programs on a blockchain instead of through a company. The operator of a web interface to such a program is today hard to get hold of in regulatory terms in the EU. That is exactly the gap the proposal aims at.

How unclear the situation currently is shows in the case of a well-known trading platform for perpetual futures, which we described under use without a MiCA licence from Germany. If the new service type came, the question of authorisation there would be answered unambiguously.

Shutting down fraud sites and freezing crypto assets: new supervisory powers

In the section on supervision ESMA asks for more operational enforcement rights. Specifically the authority names the ability to detect, block and shut down fraudulent websites and to freeze crypto assets where there is a suspicion of market abuse or terrorist financing.

This is the point at which a widespread unease would gain an official basis for the first time. A freeze would be tied to a case of suspicion and would concern not arbitrary balances but assets connected to a specific proceeding. How such a power would be shaped and limited is not in the press release; that would be a matter for the legislative process.

Part of the picture is that the authority justifies the same paragraph with the aim of making supervisory action in the EU faster and more uniform and of reducing the scope for shopping between member states.

Third-country providers without a MiCA licence: a tightening on reverse solicitation

Closely connected to that is the call for strengthened supervisory powers over firms from third countries that approach EU investors without being authorised under MiCA. What is meant is so-called reverse solicitation, the exception under which a provider without an EU authorisation may serve whoever seeks it out of their own accord.

ESMA had already set this topic as a focus of its supervisory programme from 2027. What follows from that for users is in our article on reverse solicitation in the ESMA programme for 2027. The response now goes one step further and asks for the matching legal instruments as well.

In practice that affects everyone holding an account at a trading venue outside the EU. A tightening would not forbid the account, but it would narrow the advertising and outreach channel of such providers into the EU.

Stablecoins without MiCA compliance: a ban planned for regulated providers

The fourth block of demands concerns stablecoins. ESMA proposes explicit rules prohibiting regulated crypto firms from offering services around stablecoins that do not meet the MiCA requirements.

A stablecoin is a token whose value is pegged to a currency and which is meant to be covered by reserves. For stablecoins offered in the EU, MiCA requires an authorisation of the issuer and a filed whitepaper. In practice several large tokens of this kind have already been taken off authorised trading venues in the EU.

An explicit rule would end the question of interpretation that has stood so far. For holders this would be the point with the most concrete risk: anyone holding a non-compliant stablecoin at a provider authorised in the EU would have to reckon with trading or custody there being wound down. Which trading venues carry an EU authorisation as things stand is shown by our overview of regulated crypto exchanges.

Hybrid tokens and binding classifications: ESMA wants rules on categorising

A further proposal concerns the categorising of tokens. ESMA recommends rules for how crypto assets are to be classified, explicitly including new products such as hybrid tokens. On top of that the authority would like to receive the power to issue binding opinions on the classification of individual tokens.

The background is a practical one. Whether a token falls under MiCA or is treated as a financial instrument under securities law is today decided by each national supervisor for itself. The same product can be classified differently in two member states. A binding ESMA opinion would end those divergences.

Hybrid tokens are tokens combining features of several categories, for instance a utility function and at the same time a share in revenue. Such tokens are the most common reason for classification disputes, because they fit cleanly into none of the existing boxes.

Simplification and less red tape: less duplication on whitepapers and licensing

Not all the proposals tighten. A section of its own in the response follows the EU's simplification agenda. ESMA proposes simplifying the notification procedures for crypto whitepapers, reducing duplicate authorisation requirements for firms that are already regulated, and framing the prudential own-funds requirements more uniformly.

A whitepaper in the MiCA sense is not a piece of marketing copy but a mandatory document with prescribed information on issuer, rights, risks and technology, which is notified to the supervisor before a public offering. The notification routes for it are regarded in the industry as laborious.

For investors this block is the least conspicuous, but it explains why the response is not to be read simply as a tightening. The authority bundles relief and new duties into one paper.

What already applies today and what is only a proposal

The most important distinction on this topic is the one between binding law and a recommendation. MiCA applies. The authorisation requirement for trading venues and custodians applies, the whitepaper applies, the rules for stablecoin issuers apply.

The six blocks of demands from this response do not apply. Those blocks are the contribution of a supervisory authority to a consultation in which associations, companies and other authorities have answered too. Not one of these demands obliges anyone to anything today.

Anyone reading a text that turns these points into duties already in force is reading a confusion. That goes in particular for the advertising rules and the freezing of crypto assets, because both are easy to present as already decided.

The timetable: from the consultation to a legislative proposal

The further route is laid down in the EU procedure, but it carries no dates. After the close of the consultation the EU Commission evaluates the answers and decides whether and in what form it puts forward a legislative proposal. It has published no date for that.

If a proposal comes, it goes through the ordinary legislative procedure with the European Parliament and the Council. Only after that follow transition periods, which with MiCA itself ran to several years between adoption and full application. A realistic window for changes therefore lies beyond 2027, without that being provable at present.

ESMA itself looks beyond the MiCA review in its response and points to the need for a framework for tokenised securities and for settlement on the blockchain. That is a legislative topic of its own and not part of this review.

MiCA reform: What to take away

The response is a signpost, not a deadline. The paper shows where the European supervisor wants to push the framework, and in doing so names the areas in which something is most likely to change in the coming years. Three things are worth drawing from it.

1. Keep an eye on the authorisation status of your provider. The stablecoin proposal and the tightening on reverse solicitation both aim at the line between authorised and unauthorised providers. Which trading venues carry an EU authorisation is in the overview of regulated crypto exchanges.
2. Read the terms of staking offers now as closely as the disclosure duty would demand in future. Costs, collateralisation, lock-up periods and possible losses are not everywhere set out with equal clarity today; the differences are shown by the overview of staking platforms.
3. With advertising, separate the source from the claim. Until stricter rules for third parties arrive, the judgement stays with you. Anyone wanting to hold crypto assets independently of a provider will find the devices for it in the hardware wallet comparison.

(As of September 30, 2026. This article is not investment advice. Prices and fee structures change; check the terms with the provider before you buy.)