2026 marks a strategic inflection point for digital assets in the EU

As tokenisation moves into core market infrastructure, legal and tax considerations are becoming decisive factors in how institutions structure products, allocate capital and operate across borders. For boards and senior management, the question is no longer whether digital assets will be integrated into the financial system, but how to do so in a way that is scalable, resilient, and aligned with supervisory expectations.  

MiCA is entering a more operational phase. Payment and settlement models continue to diversify, while supervisory attention increasingly centres on interoperability, supervisory alignment, and the governance of emerging digital‑market structures. At the same time, developments in the United States and the United Kingdom show other major jurisdictions moving towards clearer and more coherent oversight. Against this backdrop, Europe’s approach is evolving in a way that requires careful alignment of law and tax considerations with market design, cross‑border activity, and supervisory expectations. 

Technological infrastructure: tokenisation meets the real market

Across the EU, discussions on tokenisation are increasingly grounded in how DLT‑based models work alongside and sometimes within established market infrastructures. Market participants and authorities are zooming in on interoperability, data standards, and the operational implications of combining traditional and token‑based systems. This reflects the practical reality that tokenisation is developing in parallel with existing trading, settlement, and custody frameworks. 

A related theme is the impact of parallel market structures. Different technical environments can shape liquidity, transparency, and market connectivity, prompting a more detailed assessment of how tokenised instruments can be issued, transferred, and settled without fragmenting the broader financial ecosystem. 

Regulatory discussions continue to emphasise a technology‑neutral classification approach: the rights and obligations attached to an instrument, not the technology used to record it, should determine its regulatory treatment. This principle becomes increasingly important as hybrid instruments and programmable features expand the range of digital issuance models.

Regulatory framework: MiCA’s operational phase and cross‑regime questions 

After MiCA’s first year of application, attention in 2026 is shifting to areas where implementation questions persist. One topic drawing particular focus is the treatment of multi‑issuance structures, especially where issuance across jurisdictions interacts with different reserve and redemption arrangements. The European Commission is expected to address this and other interpretative questions in upcoming guidance and Q&As. Looking ahead, MiCA’s 2027 review will reassess several aspects of the framework, whether and how, decentralised finance features in that process remains to be seen. Genuinely decentralised arrangements still sit at the edges of the regulatory perimeter, raising unresolved questions around oversight and the attribution of responsibility. 

A second area of focus is how MiCA‑regulated tokens intersect with EU payment rules, particularly where activities involving e‑money tokens (EMTs) may fall within PSD2 and, later, the forthcoming PSR once PSD3/PSR replaces the current regime. Key questions include redemption processes, safeguarding arrangements, and when token‑based models resemble e‑money or operate as payment instruments. Recent supervisory steps have brought additional visibility to these boundaries, especially around the end of transitional approaches and expectations for authorisation or partnerships with authorised providers for EMT‑related payment services. 

At the same time, Europe’s payments landscape is evolving through multiple initiatives running in parallel. The expansion of instant payments, the growth of account‑to‑account solutions and the emergence of tokenised payment instruments point to more diversified and interoperable payment architectures. Rather than converging on a single infrastructure, the direction of travel suggests coexistence, with card schemes, bank‑based payments and token‑enabled settlement options operating within a more integrated framework. Efforts to strengthen cross‑border interoperability among European schemes reinforce this point: resilience and competitiveness increasingly depend on diversity of channels and credible domestic and cross‑border alternatives. 

Supervisory architecture and international context: governance and alignment 

Debates around the Market Integration Package (MIP) offer important signals for the future supervisory landscape. Beyond trading and post‑trading, the package reflects a broader movement towards more centralised, cross‑border supervision, particularly where new technologies challenge nationally anchored approaches. In this context, ESMA’s expanding role is increasingly relevant for digital‑asset market infrastructures, data arrangements, and alternative settlement models. 

As a result, supervisory focus in 2026 is shifting to market‑wide governance issues: how interoperable infrastructures are governed, how supervisory competences are allocated, and what EU‑level oversight should look like as markets become more digital, and more integrated. 

Outside the EU, regulatory frameworks are also consolidating. In the United States and the United Kingdom, policy and supervisory initiatives signal a move towards clearer perimeter‑setting and more structured oversight for key digital‑asset activities. These developments provide a useful comparison point for Europe as MiCA matures, and cross‑regime interactions become more prominent. 

Closing perspective 

The digital‑asset conversation in 2026 is less about whether tokenisation will play a role in European markets, and more about how it will be integrated: into existing infrastructures, across regulatory regimes, and within supervisory models designed for a more interconnected market. For decision‑makers, the practical challenge lies in aligning law and tax considerations with product structuring, operational implementation, and cross‑border activity, while keeping pace with supervisory expectations that are rapidly moving from principle to practice. 

Would you like to know more about this topic? Read our other EU Connect Snippets or reach out to one of our colleagues mentioned below.