{"id":153100,"date":"2026-10-30T10:02:46","date_gmt":"2026-10-30T10:02:46","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legal500.com\/guides\/?post_type=comparative_guide&#038;p=153100"},"modified":"2026-10-30T11:07:29","modified_gmt":"2026-10-30T11:07:29","slug":"france-blockchain-crypto-assets","status":"publish","type":"comparative_guide","link":"https:\/\/www.legal500.com\/guides\/chapter\/france-blockchain-crypto-assets\/","title":{"rendered":"France: Blockchain &amp; Crypto Assets"},"content":{"rendered":"","protected":false},"template":"","class_list":["post-153100","comparative_guide","type-comparative_guide","status-publish","hentry","guides-blockchain-crypto-assets","jurisdictions-france"],"acf":[],"appp":{"post_list":{"below_title":"<div class=\"guide-author-details\"><span class=\"guide-author\">Bredin Prat<\/span><span class=\"guide-author-logo\"><img src=\"https:\/\/www.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/1\/2019\/03\/BREDIN-PRAT-1.png\"\/><\/span><\/div>"},"post_detail":{"above_title":"<div class=\"guide-author-details\"><span class=\"guide-author\">Bredin Prat<\/span><span class=\"guide-author-logo\"><img src=\"https:\/\/www.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/1\/2019\/03\/BREDIN-PRAT-1.png\"\/><\/span><\/div>","below_title":"<span class=\"guide-intro\">This country specific Q&amp;A provides an overview of Blockchain &amp; Crypto Assets laws and regulations applicable in France<\/span><div class=\"guide-content\"><div class=\"filter\">\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t<input type=\"text\" placeholder=\"Search questions and answers...\" class=\"filter-container__search-field\">\r\n\t\t\t<\/div>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t<ol class=\"custom-counter\">\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Please provide a high-level overview of the blockchain market in your jurisdiction. In what business or public sectors are you seeing blockchain or other distributed ledger technologies being adopted?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>The French distributed ledger technology (\u201cDLT\u201d) and crypto ecosystem have emerged as a leading European hub, counting several hundred companies, with five having reached unicorn status in recent years (Ledger, Sorare, The Sandbox, Zama, Morpho). Activities span crypto-asset services, stablecoin issuance and management, DLT infrastructure, decentralised finance (\u201cDeFi\u201d), lending\/borrowing, staking, tokenisation of financial instruments and real-world assets, data\/analytics and sectoral uses (such as in the entertainment, luxury or logistics sectors).<\/p>\n<p>Despite a challenging global environment since 2022 (incl. market scandals and strengthened EU rules), the ecosystem has moved from experimentation to institutionalisation. Corporates use stablecoins and tokenised money market funds for cash management and cross-border payments, traditional financial institutions deploy DLT\/crypto solutions, and payment and market infrastructures are being modernised through DLT, tokenisation and wholesale CBDC (e.g., Pontes, Appia). Furthermore, French native players are increasingly recognised as fully-fledged financial services firms offering diversified trading, payment, cash management, lending\/borrowing and savings solutions.).<\/p>\n<p>The EU Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (\u201cMiCA\u201d) has been a key driver of this professionalisation, strengthening institutional confidence, but it also raises barriers to entry for smaller innovative projects. A further challenge lies in ensuring that regulation keeps pace with the rapid innovations of the sector, to avoid regulatory gaps or uncertainties that could hinder innovation or create an uneven playing field.<\/p>\n<p>The Q4 2025-Q3 2026 period saw several landmark developments in the French DLT\/crypto ecosystem. Morpho, one of the leading DeFi lending\/borrowing protocols globally, became a unicorn in April 2026 (over USD 1 billion in token valuation, above USD 8 billion in TVL), and raised an additional USD 175 million in June 2026 to build a global on-chain credit infrastructure. Kaiko, a leading independent provider of on-chain market data worldwide, extended its Series B funding to USD 110 million in September 2026, in a round led by S&amp;P Global, to support the development of its data infrastructure for on-chain capital markets. Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 G\u00e9n\u00e9rale-Forge, a Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 G\u00e9n\u00e9rale subsidiary and one of the main French stablecoin issuers, expanded the use cases of its euro and dollar stablecoins through integrations with Morpho (DeFi lending\/borrowing), Spiko (tokenised funds), Deutsche B\u00f6rse Group, Swift and Seturion (Boerse Stuttgart Group) (post-trading settlement of tokenised securities) and MetaMask (self-custody). Hexarq (a BPCE subsidiary) deployed end of 2025 its own retail crypto offerings. Qivalis, a consortium of 37 European banks including BNP Paribas, BPCE and Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel, was established to issue a MiCA-compliant euro stablecoin, with launch targeted for the second half of 2026. Cr\u00e9dit Agricole launched EURXT in July 2026, a euro stablecoin issued by Caceis Bank on Ethereum. Lise (Lightning Stock Exchange) hosted in April 2026 the world\u2019s first tokenised IPO (ST Group, a French aerospace and defence SME, raised approximately EUR 2 million). Meanwhile, Spiko\u2019s EU-approved tokenised money market and total return swap funds crossed recently all together EUR 2 billion in assets under management and can be used to borrow Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 G\u00e9n\u00e9rale-Forge\u2019s stablecoins via Morpho\u2019s DeFi lending\/borrowing vaults, and Spiko enabled in June 2026, for the first time in Europe, direct subscriptions and redemptions of tokenised money market funds in Circle\u2019s euro and dollar stablecoins thanks to a partnership with Coinbase (a US crypto firm). For further details on the latest public initiatives in the French DLT\/crypto sector as well as the latest developments in France for stablecoins and tokenised commercial bank deposits, please refer respectively to Q.3 and 4 below.<\/p>\n<p>The ecosystem nonetheless faces persistent domestic fundraising challenges (41% of surveyed firms have raised no external financing and 79% of external financing comes from international investors), as well as technical, compliance, talent and retail adoption challenges (c. 11% penetration in early 2026), creating a risk of relocation or foreign takeover (e.g., the sales of Aplo or Exaion).<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Please outline the principal legislation and the regulators most relevant to the use of blockchain technologies in your jurisdiction. In particular, is there any blockchain-specific legislation or are there any blockchain-specific regulatory frameworks in your jurisdiction, either now or envisaged in the short or mid-term?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p><strong><u>High-level overview of the French DLT and crypto-asset regulatory framework<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n<p>France was an early mover in regulating DLT and crypto-asset activities, notably through the Loi PACTE national legacy regime for \u201cdigital assets\u201d (2019).<\/p>\n<p>Following the adoption of MiCA, France opted for the maximum 18-month transitional period (the \u201cMiCA Transitional Period\u201d), allowing the 120+ digital asset service providers registered under the Loi PACTE regime (the \u201clegacy PSANs\u201d) to continue operating without being authorised as crypto-asset service providers (\u201cCASPs\u201d). This MiCA Transitional Period ended on 1 July 2026.<\/p>\n<p>As at the date of this publication, the AMF has authorised 36 CASPs in France, making it the second-largest home jurisdiction for authorised CASPs in the EU (behind Germany). Of these, 29 were legacy PSANs (e.g., Deblock, GOin, Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 G\u00e9n\u00e9rale-Forge, Hexarq, Bitstack, Coinhouse, Meria, Aplo, Flowdesk and Paymium), while 12 also held another regulated status (credit institution, e-money institution, payment institution, investment firm or AIFM). Only one CASP, Paymium, is authorised to operate a crypto-asset trading venue, and 31 have passported their services. Only around 25% of legacy PSANs secured a French MiCA authorisation, mainly due to the resources required.<\/p>\n<p>However, 13 legacy PSANs obtained a MiCA authorisation in another EU Member State and passported their services to France (e.g., Bitpanda, Bitstamp, Bitvavo, e-Toro, OKX and Trade Republic).<\/p>\n<p>The remaining legacy PSANs had to either (i) to consolidate with\/sell their French business\/client portfolio to an authorised CASP (e.g., Kaiko\u2019s acquisition of Cometh in May 2026, Coinhouse\u2019s acquisition of Tilvest\u2019s crypto-asset management business in June 2026), or (ii) discontinue their French regulated crypto business.<\/p>\n<p>For those firms, the AMF, following ESMA\u2019s guidelines, required orderly wind-down plans from February 2026, effective no later than 30 March 2026, requiring them to cease onboarding and marketing, limit activities to those necessary for an orderly wind-down and return client assets while maintaining AML\/CFT and sanctions controls. Migrating clients to third-country entities, including within the same group,\u00a0 was not acceptable under MiCA.<\/p>\n<p>The AMF continues to monitor these plans closely, as certain of them were not finalised by the end of the MiCA Transitional Period (e.g., Binance \u2013 see Q.13 below).<\/p>\n<p>Firms seeking to offer crypto-asset services in France without authorisation must partner with a MiCA-authorised CASP, through two main models:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>a pure referral or introducer model, which entails lower risk but may cross into MiCA-regulated advice, as reflected in the AMF\u2019s updated July 2026 doctrine on French investment advisers (\u201cCIFs\u201d) (see Q.5 below); and<\/li>\n<li>a \u201cgrey label\u201d or front-end model giving the firm\u2019s clients access to the CASP\u2019s interface (e.g., the Lydia\/Bitpanda partnership), which requires strict transparency and separation to avoid recharacterisation.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>An agency model is not possible at this stage, as MiCA does not provide for it.<\/p>\n<p>France also created a specific civil law regime recognising crypto-assets as negotiable intangible property, with ownership transfer and pledge rules (October 2024\/April 2025\/May 2026) (see Q.10 below).<\/p>\n<p>In addition, French law has been adapted for the implementation of:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>the EU DLT pilot regime for tokenised financial instruments (the \u201cEU DLT Pilot Regime\u201d), under which Lise (Lightning Stock Exchange) is the only authorised DLT trading and settlement system in France and hosted in April 2026 the world\u2019s first tokenised IPO (ST Group, approximately EUR 2 million) (see Q.3 below); and<\/li>\n<li>the EU Regulation on crypto-asset transfers extending the travel rule to crypto-asset transfers (\u201cTFR2\u201d).<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>The next key reform is the new EU AML\/CFT package applying from 10 July 2027 (see Q.6 below).<\/p>\n<p><strong><u>Relevant French regulators<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Supervision mainly rests with the Autorit\u00e9 des march\u00e9s financiers (\u201cAMF\u201d) (CASP licensing, non-stablecoin offerings), the Autorit\u00e9 de contr\u00f4le prudentiel et de r\u00e9solution (\u201cACPR\u201d) (stablecoin issuers, CASP notifications by regulated institutions, investment firms and e\u2011money institutions, authorising certain DLT infrastructures),) and the Banque de France (\u201cBdF\u201d) (oversight of payment stablecoins and certain DLT infrastructures). TRACFIN, the Treasury, ANSSI, the DGCCRF and the CNIL are also relevant.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What is the current attitude of the government and of regulators to the use of blockchain technology in your jurisdiction?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>French public authorities support the development of the crypto\/DLT ecosystem, provided it occurs in an orderly manner protecting investors and financial stability, with the aim of making France the European hub for crypto\/DLT.<\/p>\n<p>For instance, Bpifrance (\u201cBPI\u201d), the French public investment bank, has invested more than EUR 200 million in crypto\/DLT projects and will double its support under its 2025\u20132029 plan. In April 2026, BPI partnered with Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 G\u00e9n\u00e9rale-Forge to use its euro stablecoin as the reference settlement asset for certain DLT-based transactions.<\/p>\n<p>The French public authorities also back major ecosystem events, such as the Paris Blockchain Week and the French FinTech Weeks, to foster dialogue and partnerships between the ecosystem stakeholders, and initiate or participate in crypto\/DLT projects. For example:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>the BdF\u2019s wholesale central bank digital currency (\u201cCBDC\u201d) experiments since 2020 (see Q.4 below);<\/li>\n<li>the Caisse des D\u00e9p\u00f4ts et Consignations (\u201cCDC\u201d), a public bank, which has contributed to several DLT projects, including the \u201cPythagore Project\u201d within the Eurosystem\u2019s \u201cPontes\u201d initiative (started on 21 September 2026), became the first public institution to invest in a tokenised money market fund (June 2026) and launched in March 2026 its EUR 18 billion Digital Horizon 2030 strategy for digital sovereignty;<\/li>\n<li>a Franco-German task force established in January 2026 to strengthen Europe\u2019s digital finance, notably capital markets tokenisation, wholesale CBDC and euro-denominated digital settlement assets (final report expected end of 2026); and<\/li>\n<li>a strategic working group on innovation and the tokenisation of finance launched in March 2026 by the AMF, the BdF and the French Treasury with key French financial institutions (report expected summer 2026).<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Moreover, national regulators, led by the AMF and ACPR, maintain constant dialogue with French crypto\/DLT ecosystem players to foster their understanding of applicable regulations, through several educational initiatives such as dedicated conferences and webinars, as well as the publication of guidelines, Q&amp;As, and explanatory guides. In particular, the ACPR and AMF have set up dedicated \u201cFinTech\u201d teams to support crypto\/DLT project leaders and guide them in selecting and implementing their regulated status.<\/p>\n<p>French regulators are also fully engaged in the review of the EU DLT Pilot Regime and MiCA:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>given the marginal adoption of the EU DLT Pilot Regime (only six authorised DLT market infrastructures across the EU), several AMF\/Consob recommendations were incorporated into the European Commission\u2019s Market Integration and Supervision Package of December 2025 (\u201cMISP\u201d), which proposes to make the regime permanent and significantly expand it, notably by making all financial instruments eligible, removing per-financial instrument issuance caps, raising the aggregate value cap from EUR 6 billion to EUR 100 billion (with a threshold for the mandatory transition to traditional financial regulation increased from EUR 9 billion to EUR 150 billion), removing current permission time limits (making the regime permanent rather than temporary), introducing a simplified regime for smaller operators , allowing CASPs operating crypto-asset trading platforms to operate DLT market infrastructures, allowing DLT market infrastructures to operate as either MTFs or OTFs, enabling investment firms, regulated markets, credit institutions, central securities depositaries depositories and CASPs to provide individual DLT notary and DLT central maintenance services, facilitating settlement in commercial bank money and significant e-money tokens (\u201cEMTs\u201d) issued under MiCA) and transferring most EU DLT Pilot Regime supervision from national regulators to ESMA for the most significant DLT market infrastructures. However, given the complexity and expected length of the MISP legislative process \u2013 which could potentially push effective implementation to around 2030 \u2013, the European and French financial industry called in February and April 2026 the EU co-legislators for the most urgent and undisputed amendments to the EU DLT Pilot Regime to be fast-tracked, ad advocated in September 2026 for further ambition to allow large-scale and competitive tokenisation projects under the EU DLT Pilot Regime and remain competitive with respect to global market developments (notably in the US).<\/li>\n<li>in September 2025, the AMF, the Consob and the Austrian FMA proposed targeted MiCA revisions (including direct ESMA supervision of significant CASPs), which were reflected and enhanced in the MISP proposing to transfer the supervision of all CASPs to ESMA. In addition, the European Commission\u2019s targeted consultation on the review of MiCA (20 May to 30 September 2026) (the \u201cEC MiCA Review Consultation\u201d) covered (i) offerings and the MiCA\/MiFID perimeter, (ii) stablecoins (multi-issuance, reserve requirements and the remuneration prohibition), (iii) the CASP framework, (iv) new activities (staking, lending, NFTs, prediction markets and DeFi) and (v) the legal treatment of tokens. A legislative proposal (\u201cMiCA 2\u201d) is expected to follow.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>For further details on the EC MiCA Review Consultation and the French regulators\u2019 positions on CBDC, stablecoins and tokenised deposits, please refer to Q.4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 14 and 15 below.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Is there a central bank digital currency (\u2018CBDC\u2019) project in your jurisdiction? If so, what is the status of the project?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p><strong><u>BdF\u2019s wholesale CBDC experimentation programme<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Since 2020, the BdF has conducted wholesale CBDC experiments with market players and central banks (including Project Mariana and through its own \u201cDL3S\u201d DLT), confirming that wholesale CBDC can deliver atomic settlement across heterogeneous DLTs, while leaving open questions on finality, access and macrofinancial effects. In 2024, it contributed to the Eurosystem\u2019s exploratory trials.<\/p>\n<p>The BdF now contributes to the Eurosystem\u2019s two-phase plan for wholesale CBDC settlement:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Phase 1 (the \u201cPontes\u201d initiative) links market DLT platforms and T2, the Eurosystem\u2019s RTGS system, to settle DLT-based wholesale transactions in central bank money, either on a Eurosystem DLT platform with wholesale CBDC or in T2. Pontes\u2019 initial phase started on 21 September 2026, covering DvP settlement of tokenised securities, PvP transactions and wholesale euro payments (09:00\u201316:00 CET on T2 business days), with enhanced features to be added in 2027-2028 (final settlement on the DLT platform, extended then 24\/7 availability, multi-currency). In this context, the BdF and Euroclear France launched the \u201cPythagore\u201d project to tokenise the approximately EUR 350 billion Negotiable European Commercial Paper (\u201cNEU CP\u201d) market, settled in wholesale CBDC through Pontes.<\/li>\n<li>Phase 2 (the \u201cAppia\u201d project) aims to build a broader integrated Eurosystem DLT ecosystem for tokenised central bank money, tokenised deposits, stablecoins and tokenised assets, with a blueprint expected by 2028.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><strong><u>MiCA stablecoin regime and euro stablecoins<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n<p>MiCA distinguishes (i) asset-referenced tokens (\u201cARTs\u201d), referencing multiple assets, and (ii) EMTs, referencing a single official currency. Both notably require prior authorisation (from the ACPR in France), a white paper and segregated reserves, significant issuers are subject to EBA supervision, and interest or yield on stablecoins is prohibited. EMTs may also trigger payment services licensing (see Q.14 below).<\/p>\n<p>No ART has been authorised in the EU to date, which the EC MiCA Review Consultation explicitly acknowledged, questioning whether MiCA\u2019s requirements (which in practice includes burdensome authorisation, reserve rules and a 250% CRR risk weight) are themselves the barrier.<\/p>\n<p>The EU stablecoin market has thus developed through EMTs, with euro-denominated EMTs accounting for less than 1% of the approximately USD 300 billion global stablecoin market (over 96% USD-denominated).<\/p>\n<p><strong><u>BdF\u2019s position on the wholesale CBDC vs stablecoins vs tokenised commercial bank deposits debate<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The BdF considers wholesale CBDC the foundational settlement layer for tokenised finance, with stablecoins and tokenised deposits as complements, and views the predominance of USD stablecoins as a threat to EU monetary sovereignty, advocating MiCA revisions to strengthen oversight of USD stablecoins (including third-country multi-issuer schemes) and improve euro stablecoin competitiveness.<\/p>\n<p>The French ecosystem advocates supporting both euro stablecoins and tokenised deposits, broad participation in Pontes and reform of MiCA\u2019s stablecoin rules, including allowing intermediaries to remunerate EMT services, access to central bank safeguarding accounts, a single MiCA\/PSD authorisation route, revising the \u201csignificant issuer\u201d thresholds, mutual recognition with key jurisdictions, lower bank-deposit reserve floors and recognition of euro stablecoins as eligible settlement assets and collateral.<\/p>\n<p>At EU level, a consortium of 37 European banks (including BNP Paribas, Cr\u00e9dit Mutuel and BPCE) incorporated Qivalis B.V. to issue a MiCA-compliant euro stablecoin on Ethereum, which has obtained EMI authorisation from De Nederlandsche Bank in October 2026.<\/p>\n<p>Domestically, six EMT issuers are authorised in France (including Circle, Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 G\u00e9n\u00e9rale-Forge, Salvus, Oddo BHF, Heuro and CACEIS Bank). Notable initiatives include (i) Cr\u00e9dit Agricole\u2019s EURXT, launched in July 2026 by CACEIS Bank on Ethereum and recently used to settle subscriptions into a tokenised Amundi money market fund, (ii) Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 G\u00e9n\u00e9rale-Forge\u2019s integrations with Morpho, Spiko, Deutsche B\u00f6rse Group, Swift, Seturion and MetaMask, and (iii) Circle, the first global issuer to reach MiCA compliance for its dollar and euro stablecoins (euro stablecoin having been classified as \u201csignificant\u201d under MiCA by the EBA).<\/p>\n<p>European banks are also exploring tokenised commercial bank deposits, which remain claims on a bank, can bear interest, are covered by deposit-guarantee schemes and preserve banks\u2019 lending capacity. Unlike stablecoins, whose primary appeal lies in their portability across open ecosystems, tokenised commercial bank deposits retain dependence on the issuing bank or a network of participating banks. In June 2026, Paris Europlace identified tokenised deposits as a strategic priority for France, recommending common projects interoperable with Pontes and stressing that stablecoins and tokenised deposits are complementary. In September 2026, BNP Paribas joined the Commercial Bank Money Token (\u201cCBMT\u201d), an interbank tokenised deposit initiative launched by the German Banking Industry Committee and in sandbox phase since 2025 with six other banks, testing use cases such as programmable B2B and cross-border payments. No equivalent French initiative exists yet, although discussions among France\u2019s largest banks were reported in early 2026.<\/p>\n<p><strong><u>BdF\u2019s position on the retail digital euro<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n<p>In December 2025, the Council of the EU unanimously endorsed the issuance of a retail digital euro covering online and offline use cases, with universal acceptance across the Eurozone and a high degree of privacy. The European Parliament\u2019s ECON committee voted on 23 June 2026 in favour of the retail digital euro legal framework (endorsing both online and offline versions as well). The full Parliament plenary confirmed officially this position on 9 July 2026, opening the way to trilogue negotiations between the European Parliament, the Council and the European Commission, with the aim to finalise the retail digital euro legal framework by the end of 2026. If the retail digital euro legal framework is finalised in 2026, a pilot could start in September 2027, with effective public deployment anticipated around 2029.<\/p>\n<p>The digital euro would be issued by the Eurosystem but distributed by commercial banks, as a retail payment instrument (not an investment asset) with holding limits, offering an online mode with pseudonymous transactions and an offline device-to-device mode with cash-like privacy, and complementing private solutions such as Cartes Bancaires and Wero.<\/p>\n<p>The BdF strongly supports the project and has called for faster French industry engagement.<\/p>\n<p>French banks have raised concerns regarding disintermediation, competition with private payment initiatives and costs, but following the European Parliament\u2019s 2026 vote the French Banking Federation (\u201cFBF\u201d) called for a design complementary to existing private solutions.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What is the current approach in your jurisdiction to the treatment of cryptoassets and decentralised finance (\u2018DeFi\u2019) for the purposes of financial regulation?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p><strong><u>Implementation of MiCA CASP regime in France<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Providing any of the ten MiCA crypto\u2011asset services (e.g., custody, trading platforms, exchange, execution, placement, RTO, advice, portfolio management and transfer) in France on a regular basis requires prior CASP authorisation, failing which criminal sanctions (2 years\u2019 imprisonment and a \u20ac30,000 fine, up to \u20ac150,000 for legal entities) and disciplinary sanctions may apply.<\/p>\n<p>Exclusions include services on MiFID financial instruments, CBDCs and NFTs, intra-group services, crypto lending\/borrowing, staking and DeFi-based services, although the AMF considers that lending and staking may, depending on their structure, amount to regulated CASP or payment services (e.g., indirect custodial staking usually involves custody services).<\/p>\n<p>Following ESMA\u2019s June 2026 clarifications on crypto-asset advice, the AMF updated in July 2026 its guidelines for CIFs: CIFs require CASP authorisation whenever they make a personalised recommendation on identified crypto-assets or a specific crypto-asset service, but not for (i) general non-personalised communications, (ii) a general reference to the AMF\u2019s white list of CASPs, (iii) an asset allocation including crypto exposure without recommending specific crypto-assets or services (with appropriate disclosure), or (iv) advice on financial instruments with underlying crypto-assets.<\/p>\n<p>CASP status is obtained via an AMF licence or, for eligible regulated institutions, a notification, and benefits from the EU passport. Authorised CASPs must comply with general and service-specific organisational and conduct of business rules.<\/p>\n<p>The EC MiCA Review Consultation examined whether the CASP framework remains fit for purpose, including the scope of services, MiFID-style appropriateness tests, capital requirements and oversight of multi-function groups, as well as whether staking, crypto lending\/borrowing and NFT service providers should be regulated.<\/p>\n<p><strong><u>Treatment of DeFi in France<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n<p>DeFi refers to on\u2011chain financial activities executed by smart contracts (e.g., decentralised exchanges, lending protocols, staking, derivatives, prediction markets and DAO governance). Although not yet systemic, it is growing rapidly (around USD 78 billion in TVL as of September 2024).<\/p>\n<p>DeFi remains a legal grey area: MiCA excludes services provided entirely in a decentralised manner, requiring a case\u2011by\u2011case assessment of each protocol\u2019s degree of decentralisation.<\/p>\n<p>The ACPR and the AMF have analysed DeFi risks (DLT infrastructure, smart contract and oracle vulnerabilities, leverage and interconnectedness) and regulatory challenges (identifying challenges regarding control, applying centralised frameworks, enforcement), and explored approaches such as security standards for public DLTs, .<\/p>\n<p>Beyond these risks, DeFi presents several regulatory challenges. First, identifying a responsible locus of control is difficult where influence is diffuse or masked, yet essential for assigning obligations and enabling supervision and redress. In addition, applying existing frameworks designed for centralised intermediaries (including the MiCA CASP regime) is not straightforward. Regulators must distinguish where technology\u2011neutral rules can be applied by analogy and where bespoke measures are needed to address specific topics such as automated execution, oracle dependency, and new infrastructure risks. Finally, effective enforcement requires an ability to focus on reachable touchpoints and cross\u2011border coordination.<\/p>\n<p>Considering the above, the ACPR and the AMF have explored different regulatory approaches to regulate DeFi, including: (i) minimum security standards and periodic audits for public\/permissionless DLTs, (ii) smart contract certification calibrated by scale\/risk, (iii) governance transparency, (iv) proportionate standards for oracles, particularly in respect of data quality, and (v) regulation of access points\/front\u2011ends and intermediaries providing user gateways to DeFi.<\/p>\n<p>French DeFi industry supports treating decentralisation as a spectrum based on functional criteria, protecting developers, and relying on existing market practices (audits, bug bounties) over new certification schemes.<\/p>\n<p>At EU level, the EC MiCA Review Consultation explored criteria for determining whether a protocol is \u201cnot fully decentralised\u201d (identifiable intermediaries, control of key functions, governance concentration, custody of user assets, closed code, marketing by identifiable persons), and whether DeFi risks should be addressed indirectly through CASPs (due diligence, liability, restrictions on connecting clients to uncertified protocols) (see Q.11 below).<\/p>\n<p>This is the first time the EU has formally consulted on the regulatory treatment of DeFi, an outcome closely watched by the French ecosystem.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What is the current approach in your jurisdiction to the treatment of cryptoassets and DeFi for the purposes of anti-money laundering and sanctions?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>French regulators assess money laundering and terrorist financing risks in crypto\u2011asset activities as very high, as confirmed by TRACFIN\u2019s 2024\/2025 annual reports.<\/p>\n<p>Since 30 December 2024, CASPs are subject to France\u2019s full AML\/CFT and sanctions framework (risk-based controls, KYC, transaction monitoring, suspicious transaction reporting to TRACFIN and asset freezing) and TFR2, whereas DeFi-based providers are in principle out of scope.<\/p>\n<p>In anticipation of the EU AML\/CFT Regulation (\u201cAMLR\u201d) applying from 10 July 2027, CASPs are already subject to crypto-specific requirements, including identification of all clients without thresholds, enhanced due diligence for third-country correspondent relationships and self\u2011hosted wallet transfers, a ban on anonymisation services, and the TFR2 travel rule.<\/p>\n<p>The French regulators\u2019 guidelines provide further details on CASPs\u2019 AML\/CFT and sanctions obligations. ACPR on-site inspections since 2022 have identified weaknesses in governance, compliance resources, risk classification, on-chain monitoring and suspicious transaction reporting. However, TRACFIN\u2019s 2025 annual report shows suspicious transaction reports from CASPs increased by 58% in 2025.<\/p>\n<p>Non-compliance can lead to disciplinary and criminal sanctions. Following the Narcotrafic Law (2025), the criminal presumption of illicit origin also extends to transactions using transactions carried out using crypto-assets, accounts or techniques with anonymisation or opacification features.<\/p>\n<p>From 10 July 2027, CASPs will need to implement the remaining AMLR provisions. In addition, the EU Anti-Money Laundering Authority (\u201cAMLA\u201d), operational since January 2026, can directly supervise certain high-risk cross-border CASPs from 2028, with the first selection planned for 2027.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What is the current approach in your jurisdiction to the treatment of cryptoassets and DeFi for the purposes of taxation?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Regarding the taxation of individuals selling crypto-assets in the context of the management of their private wealth, French law provides for a specific regime whereby the sale of \u201cqualifying\u201d crypto-assets against \u201cqualifying\u201d crypto-assets is not a taxable event. Taxation only occurs when \u201cqualifying\u201d crypto-assets are sold against fiat money. In such case, the gain is determined as the difference between the sale price of the \u201cqualifying\u201d crypto-assets and an acquisition price, equal to the acquisition price of the entire taxpayer\u2019s crypto-assets portfolio multiplied by the sale price and divided by the taxpayer\u2019s portfolio fair market value on the date of the sale. The gain is then taxable at a 12.8% for personal income tax, plus 18.6% of social contributions on wealth income, plus up to 4% of exceptional surcharge on high income (if applicable), plus up to 3.2% of differential surcharge on high income (if applicable), leading to a combined taxation rate of up to 38.6%. For purposes of this rule, \u201cqualifying\u201d crypto-assets are defined by reference to the definition of \u201ccrypto-assets\u201d provided by MiCA. The receipt of crypto-assets from a DeFi protocol is generally not taxable until they are converted into fiat money, provided they are \u201cqualifying\u201d crypto-assets. When the sold crypto-assets are not \u201cqualifying\u201d crypto-assets, a case-by-case analysis need to be performed to determine what is the applicable tax treatment. The tax treatment of the sale of NFTs within the meaning of Article 3 of MiCA is the same as the one applying had the underlying good or rights been sold.<\/p>\n<p>Regarding the taxation of individuals selling crypto-assets in the context of a trading business or companies, gains and losses are generally included in the taxpayer\u2019s result (either subject to personal income tax under the category of commercial income or non-commercial income at the progressive scale up to 45% plus up to 4% of exceptional surcharge on high income (if applicable) or subject to corporate income tax at the standard rate of 25%, plus 3.3% of the corporate income tax due if the exceptional surcharge on corporate income tax applies). Income from DeFi arrangements should also be included in the taxpayer\u2019s result. For individuals, social security contributions on activity income may also apply. Also, when an individual is engaged into mining activities, his\/her profits should be taxed as non-commercial income at the same rate as commercial income.<\/p>\n<p>A factual analysis should be performed when an individual engages in the buying and selling of crypto-assets to determine whether he or she is acting in the context of the management of his\/her private wealth or in the context of a trading activity.<\/p>\n<p>With respect to VAT, a case-by-case analysis shall be performed to determine whether the sale of crypto-assets is subject to VAT. For instance, VAT may apply to the sale of NFTs, at a rate depending upon the nature of the NFTs.<\/p>\n<p>Regarding compliance obligations, services providers providing \u201ccrypto-assets services\u201d within the meaning of MiCA (including French CASPs authorised under MiCA and other service providers not authorised under MiCA with the French regulators but that have certain ties with France (e.g., tax resident in France or managed from France)) have to report to the French tax authorities certain information relating to the crypto-assets transactions carried out by the users of their services as from January 1, 2026. The first reporting is due in 2027 for the fiscal year 2026.<\/p>\n<p>We would like to thank Adrien Soumagne for his contribution to this question.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What is the current approach in your jurisdiction to retail and wholesale tokenisation projects?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>France has a long-standing national framework for tokenisation that predates the EU DLT Pilot Regime. Ordinance n\u00b0 2017-1674 of 8 December 2017 allowed certain financial securities not admitted to a central securities depository (including negotiable debt securities, units or shares of investment funds, and unlisted shares and bonds) to be issued and transferred through a shared electronic recording device (dispositif d&#8217;enregistrement \u00e9lectronique partag\u00e9, &#8220;DEEP&#8221;), with the same effect as a securities account entry, subject to the applicable statutory conditions. Law n\u00b0 2023-171 of 9 March 2023 extended this regime to securities admitted to DLT market infrastructures under the EU DLT Pilot Regime. Tokenisation does not, in itself, take an instrument outside the financial regulatory perimeter: tokens qualifying as financial instruments remain subject to applicable MiFID, prospectus and other EU financial services rules, depending on the instrument and activity.<\/p>\n<p>In practice, French tokenisation remains mainly wholesale, centred on the EU DLT Pilot Regime and the Eurosystem&#8217;s tokenised finance strategy (see Q.2 to Q.4). As already mentioned, key milestones include Lise&#8217;s tokenised IPO in April 2026, the launch of Pontes on 21 September 2026, and the Banque de France\/Euroclear Pythagore project to tokenise the NEU CP market, whose pilot is scheduled for end-2026. The strategic working group launched in March 2026 by the AMF, the Banque de France and the French Treasury also covers tokenised funds. Retail exposure is developing partly through tokenised money market funds, a European market that grew from EUR 108 million to EUR 500 million between October 2024 and October 2025 (see Q.1 and Q.4).<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Are there any prohibitions on the use or trading of cryptoassets in your jurisdiction? If permitted, is cryptoasset trading common?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>The holding, use and trading of crypto\u2011assets are permitted in France.<\/p>\n<p>However, issuing crypto-assets and providing crypto-asset services are regulated activities, requiring the necessary authorisations unless services are provided on a strictly construed reverse solicitation basis. Misleading information on regulatory status and promotion of illegal offerings are prohibited. French regulators maintain blacklists and whitelists and may request geo-blocking of unauthorised firms.<\/p>\n<p>In addition, the marketing of crypto-asset offerings and crypto-asset services is strictly regulated, particularly when targeting retail investors and consumers. While crypto-asset offerings or services may be promoted, the promotional communications used for these purposes must comply with specific conduct of business rules, particularly about ensuring that the information provided is fair, clear, and not misleading. Furthermore, certain promotional methods, when directed at retail investors and consumers, may only be carried out by authorised intermediaries and are subject to further conduct of business requirements. Failure to comply with these rules could also result in criminal and disciplinary sanctions.<\/p>\n<p>Marketing is strictly regulated: financial solicitation, aggressive electronic advertising and sponsorship targeting retail investors are reserved to authorised CASPs. Binance was fined \u20ac75,000 in 2026 by the French consumer regulator for illegally promoting its services through a crypto training it sponsored in 2022-2023.<\/p>\n<p>Influencers cannot promote unauthorised crypto-asset services and, where authorised, must include clear disclosures and comply with mandatory contract requirements, CASPs using influencers are jointly and severally liable. In 2025, the AMF reported 14 non-compliance cases to the French consumer regulator in relation to such rules.<\/p>\n<p>Furthermore, French regulators have published numerous educational materials and resources for French investors.<\/p>\n<p>ADAN\u2019s 2026 survey shows that 93% of French people are familiar with at least one crypto-asset, 11% own one and 7% are active investors.<\/p>\n<p>The AMF Ombudsman\u2019s 2025 annual report shows a 38% increase in crypto-related disputes (148 dossiers), of which only about 30% were admissible, mainly concerning AML\/CFT account restrictions, pending transactions and estate successions.<\/p>\n<p>Finally, under a October 2026 ESMA opinion, CASPs are not allowed to provide crypto-asset services for non MiCA compliant ARTs and EMTs.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">To what extent have initial coin offerings (\u2018ICOs\u2019) taken place in your jurisdiction and what has been the attitude of relevant authorities to ICOs? If permissible, what are the key requirements that an entity would need to comply with when launching an ICO?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>ICO activity has declined since the early days, representing only 9% of French ecosystem financings by value in 2024.<\/p>\n<p>Since 30 December 2024, public offerings and admissions to trading of non-stablecoin crypto-assets require an AMF notification (no licence, publication ) of a white paper including disclosures and a classification analysis, together with compliant marketing communications and conduct rules, subject to targeted exemptions.<\/p>\n<p>In 2025, the AMF received far more white paper notifications from other EU Member States than domestic ones (638 vs 14), leading it to recommend in September 2025 an ESMA one-stop shop for white paper scrutiny.<\/p>\n<p>The EC MiCA Review Consultation also addressed the MiFID\/MiCA boundary for tokenised and borderline instruments (hybrid tokens, wrapped assets, tokenised fund interests, NFTs in series), white paper and marketing rules, and possible new rules such as retail restrictions for speculative crypto-assets and founder lock-ups.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Are there any legal or regulatory issues concerning the transfer of title to or the granting of security over cryptoassets?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>MiCA does not address the civil law regime of crypto-assets, which remains a matter of national law. France implemented a specific regime between 2024 and 2025, characterising crypto-assets as \u201cnegotiable intangible goods\u201d (biens incorporels n\u00e9gociables) with transfer and security rules aligned to those of securities (previous characterisation doubts led to the application of traditional ownership transfer and security interest regimes, which were in practice ill-suited to the specific features of such assets).<\/p>\n<p><strong><u>Rules for transferring the title of crypto-assets<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Title passes by registration: for on-chain transactions, when the DLT registration becomes irreversible under the relevant consensus mechanism; for off-chain transactions, upon registration in the custodian\u2019s internal register, which the French Steering Committee (Haut Comit\u00e9 Juridique de la Place financi\u00e8re de Paris) recommends within 24 hours of the client\u2019s instructions.<\/p>\n<p>Open issues remain, including the moment of irreversibility in fork scenarios, mismatches between on-chain and custodial registrations, and the treatment of forks, airdrops and staking rewards.<\/p>\n<p><strong><u>Ad hoc regime for pledging crypto-assets<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n<p>France created a special pledge over crypto-assets (nantissement de crypto-actifs), effective upon a declaration signed by the pledgor, covering identified crypto-assets and their proceeds and requiring the pledgee\u2019s effective control. It may be enforced eight days after formal notice, including by appropriation, and smart contracts may be used to sign the declaration, issue notices or enforce the pledge, subject to technical safeguards.<\/p>\n<p>Pledge documentation should address custodian notification, robust control structures, margining and protocol-level events. Use in bank financing remains limited due to prudential constraints, except for stablecoins, and only one MiCA-authorised bank in France currently offers Lombard loans against stablecoins.<\/p>\n<p>The French crypto pledge regime\u2019s success in practice will depend on whether it is used in concrete use cases, notably in the context of both traditional and DeFi lending transactions<\/p>\n<p><strong><u>Potential future reform at EU level<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The EC MiCA Review Consultation asked whether national law leaves uncertainty on token ownership, transfer, collateral, custody chains and insolvency, and tested options including a 28th regime recognising DLT-register effects, harmonisation, EU conflict-of-laws rules and five ownership models.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">How are smart contracts characterised within your legal framework? Are there any enforceability issues specific to the operation of smart contracts which do not arise in the case of traditional legal contracts?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>At this stage, France has no dedicated legal or regulatory framework for smart contracts, although reflections are ongoing at both French and EU level.<\/p>\n<p>Smart contracts are IT programs deployed on DLT that automatically execute predefined transactions when coded conditions are met. They are a technical means of contractual performance rather than contracts under French law, which uses the term \u201cautomated clause executor\u201d (see Q.10 above).<\/p>\n<p>Key risks are code vulnerabilities and liability for coding errors, cyber-attacks or fraud, with possible liability for developers, deployers or governance communities (see Q.12 below).<\/p>\n<p>In 2025, the ACPR and AMF explored smart contract certification (technical standards, audit methodologies, voluntary or mandatory regimes), with the industry favouring voluntary, risk-calibrated certification, using existing market practices.<\/p>\n<p>At EU level, the EC MiCA Review Consultation also explored certification schemes for DeFi protocols and smart contracts, including (i) their scope (existing MiCA-regulated crypto-asset services and\/or crypto lending and borrowing), (ii) certifying entities (public\/private), (iii) whether they should apply only to significant protocols (e.g., based on TVL), and (iv) whether CASPs should be barred from connecting clients to uncertified protocols.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">How are Decentralised Autonomous Organisations (\u2018DAOs\u2019) treated in your jurisdiction?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>There is no legal definition of DAOs under French law. They are generally understood as organisations whose governance rules are encoded in smart contracts on DLTs.<\/p>\n<p>DAOs operate natively online and at global scale by combining DLT infrastructure, smart contracts and crypto-assets. Governance often relies on tokens conferring voting rights, but token-based voting is not a definitional requirement and, depending on design, votes may be advisory or binding. In mature arrangements, vote proposals follow standardised pathways \u2013 from forum discussion to on-chain vote \u2013 with automated execution where feasible. Transparency is characteristic: rules, treasury positions and governance history are observable on-chain. Use cases range widely, from the governance of DeFi protocols to investment vehicles, community or charitable coordination, and the funding of digital public goods.<\/p>\n<p>In France, empirically, DAOs have typically been structured using (i) a simple structure in the form of a commercial company or an association that acts as both the developer and issuer of governance tokens, or (ii) an arrangement comprising (a) a software development company, most often a simplified joint stock company (SAS), (b) a \u201cbridge organisation\u201d that develops smart contracts and implements upgrades decided by the DAO, and (c) a legal \u201cwrapper\u201d, generally a non-profit association that issues governance tokens and publishes a white paper setting out governance rules, together with (d) a set of smart contracts collectively administered through decentralised governance by governance-token holders. French law does not recognise DAOs as sui generis legal persons. However, in disputes, French courts may requalify DAOs by analogy under existing legal qualifications. Where capital contributions, affectio societatis and a sharing of profits and losses are evidenced, characterisation as a de facto company (soci\u00e9t\u00e9 cr\u00e9\u00e9e de fait) is conceivable, implying no separate legal personality and potential personal, even joint and several, liability of members in some circumstances. Where participants pool activities or knowledge toward a non-profit objective without formalities, a de facto association (association de fait) may be characterised, likewise lacking legal personality. For DAOs that hold common crypto-assets, indivision may be argued, reflecting co-ownership without personality. Investment-type DAOs may invite comparison with French collective investment schemes which do not possess legal personality. Across these potential legal qualifications, the constant is the absence of separate legal personality and the correlative shift of responsibility toward identifiable persons or legal entities involved in the development, governance, facilitation or operation of user interfaces.<\/p>\n<p>This legal uncertainty crystallises a series of risks and implementation challenges. A DAO without personality cannot own property, contract, hire, open accounts, or sue or be sued. DAOs that rely on associations, foundations or ad hoc representatives raise questions about mandate scope, fiduciary duties and the enforceability of on-chain governance instructions against directors bound by their own statutory duties. Liability allocation for DAOs is diffuse. Claimants may target developers, association or foundation managers, front-end operators, multisig signers and significant tokenholders. Insolvency law offers no procedures to DAOs lacking personality and if they are requalified, members may face proceedings on their own patrimony. Taxation is also unsettled: territorial nexus, taxpayer identity and characterisation of income (protocol revenues, distributions, token vesting) are complex for \u201centityless\u201d DAOs, and contributors face VAT and invoicing constraints when the counterparty lacks a legally cognisable identity and address.<\/p>\n<p>Regulatory compliance is another issue. Depending on activities and factual control, persons involved with a DAO may fall within MiCA rules or, for investment DAOs, AIFM rules. The narrow MiCA exclusion for DeFi services provided \u201centirely in a decentralised manner without any intermediary\u201d is to be interpreted strictly and therefore rarely applies in the presence of intermediated components exercising some form of control over the protocol (for further details on the latest developments on this issue, please refer to Q.5 above).In July 2026, the French Steering Committee published a second report (\u201cRapport DAO II\u201d) on reforms to provide a secure legal framework for DAOs, adapting existing legal categories rather than creating a new sui generis form.<\/p>\n<p>Three reform paths were explored: (i) an \u201cassociation-DAO\u201d under the Law of 1 July 1901 (simplified formalities, recognition of member pseudonymity through DLT addresses, valid on-chain governance), (ii) a new \u201cfoundation-DAO\u201d status based on a \u201cdigital common good\u201d (bien commun num\u00e9rique), and which would permit strictly framed ancillary economic activities, allow decentralised governance mechanisms, and require simplified incorporation procedures and adjustments to membership rules, (iii) the proposed EU directive on European Cross-Border Associations, which would provide automatic recognition across the EU but that France currently opposes.<\/p>\n<p>The Committee concluded that a \u201cfondation-DAO\u201d status is the least obstacle-ridden path, which could be pursued alongside the proposed EU 28th Regime (EU Inc.) announced by the European Commission in March 2026.<\/p>\n<p>DAO issues have not been addressed separately from the broader issues surrounding DeFi as part of the EC MiCA Review Consultation.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Have there been any governmental or regulatory enforcement actions concerning blockchain in your jurisdiction?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Few enforcement actions were taken during the MiCA Transitional Period. However, from 2022 to 2026, the AMF withdrew the PSAN registration of six players, notably Bykep (2022, client\u2011debit and AML\/CFT breaches) and Automata France (operating via Vancelian.com) (2026, unauthorised crowdfunding activity and failure to meet good repute requirements).<\/p>\n<p>In addition, Binance has been subject to a French judicial investigation since January 2025 for aggravated money laundering and unauthorised provision of crypto-asset services. Doubts over its AML\/CFT compliance, \u201cfit and proper\u201d requirements and complex structure have been cited as key factors in its failure to secure MiCA authorisation, resulting in the suspension of its regulated EU services from 1 July 2026. Binance was also fined \u20ac75,000 in 2026 by the French consumer regulator for illegally promoting its services in the context of a crypto educational training it sponsored in 2022-2023, since it was not properly licensed under the PSAN legacy regime(see Q.8 above).<\/p>\n<p>With MiCA now fully applicable, French regulators will focus on CASPs\u2019 compliance with conduct of business, AML\/CFT and DORA requirements and on the wind-down of legacy PSANs that failed to obtain authorisation (e.g., Binance). Enforcement should therefore gain traction.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Are there any other generally-applicable laws, case law or regulations that may present issues for the use of blockchain technology (such as privacy and data protection law or insolvency law)?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p><strong><u>Payment services regulation<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Crypto-asset services may amount to payment services requiring a payment institution (\u201cPI\u201d) licence or registration as agent of a payment services provider (\u201cPSP\u201d). In particular, since EMTs are \u201cfunds\u201d under PSD2, CASPs providing EMT services may also require a PI licence.<\/p>\n<p>The EBA\u2019s No-Action Letter of 10 June 2025 confirmed that EMT transfer and custody\/administration services provided on behalf of clients qualify as payment services, granting a transition period until 2 March 2026 (the \u201cNo-Action Letter Transition Period\u201d).<\/p>\n<p>In its 12 February 2026 opinion, the EBA set out three scenarios at the end of that period (postponed to 1 July 2026 for legacy PSANs in France): CASPs that have obtained a PI licence or partnered with a PSP may continue; those with a pending application may continue under strict conditions (no marketing or onboarding); and others must cease their EMT services and offboard clients.<\/p>\n<p>On 19 February 2026, the ACPR established a streamlined PI licensing procedure for CASPs limited to EMT services, reusing information provided to the AMF, and requiring notably a separate supervisory body, asset segregation, own funds under Method A, a programme of activities, a three-year business plan, internal control, IT security policies and a BdF security assessment. Licensed CASPs benefit from an 18-month transitional period before standard prudential reporting applies, while AML\/CFT reporting applies from 31 March 2027.<\/p>\n<p>To date, nine French CASPs have been granted a PI licence (GOin, Hexarq, Coinhouse, Paymium, Metal Gear, Rujifi Capital, Qwarks, Alphacap Digital Assets and Flowdesk), Fipto obtained an extension of its PI licence, and Bitstack and Cometh have been registered as payment services agents.<\/p>\n<p>The PSD3\/PSR package, replacing PSD2 around H2 2028, will exclude certain EMT transactions from payment services regulation, provide a streamlined PI licensing route for CASPs and allow PIs to provide equivalent EMT crypto-asset services through notification. The European Commission will have to review these rules within three years after entry in force.<\/p>\n<p>In the EC MiCA Review Consultation, the European Commission considered that this PSD3\/PSR package has \u201clargely addressed and clarified\u201d the PSD\/MiCA interplay issue.<\/p>\n<p><strong><u>Prudential banking regime<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Article 501d CRR provides a transitional prudential regime for banks\u2019 crypto-asset exposures: tokenised traditional assets (including EMTs) take their underlying\u2019s risk weight, ARTs are weighted at 250% and other crypto-assets at 1,250% (capped at 1% of Tier 1). The permanent framework transposing the Basel standard has not yet been proposed, and the transitional regime is expected to be extended.<\/p>\n<p><strong><u>Data Protection <\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The General Data Protection Regulation (\u201cGDPR\u201d) is one of the most influential legal frameworks affecting the development and deployment of DLT, as it governs the processing of personal data across the EU. Whereas the GDPR is founded on centralised notions of accountability and controllership, DLT operates on principles of decentralisation, immutability, and distributed participation. This conceptual tension creates significant legal uncertainty and makes it challenging to reconcile DLT with GDPR requirements and data protection principles more broadly, particularly with respect to: (i) the allocation of roles and responsibilities, (ii) data minimisation and storage limitation, (iii) the safeguarding of data subject rights and (iv) the principles of privacy by design and by default.<\/p>\n<p><strong><u>Allocation of roles and responsibilities<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The GDPR requires that controllers and processors be clearly identified, as this qualification determines accountability and compliance risks. In DLTs, however, such identification depends on the governance model and is often complex. Permissioned DLTs, where a single entity or consortium regulates participation, provide a clearer framework for assigning roles. By contrast, in public and permissionless DLTs, functions such as validation, storage, and smart contract development are dispersed among many actors, making responsibilities more difficult to define. For instance, users who write data onto a chain may qualify as controllers, while developers or validators may, in some circumstances, be considered processors. In certain cases, nodes or developers may also be regarded as joint controllers where they exert decisive influence. In conclusion, roles must be determined on a case-by-case basis, taking into account governance structures, technical features, and the actual influence of the actors involved.<\/p>\n<p><strong><u>Data minimisation and storage limitation<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The principles of data minimisation and storage limitation are central to the GDPR: only data strictly necessary for a specified purpose may be processed, and it must not be retained longer than required. DLT, in principle and as originally conceived, relies on the permanent recording and replication of transactions across nodes, making deletion technically impracticable. This structural permanence creates compliance challenges for these principles, unless mitigated through appropriate technical or governance measures such as off-chain storage, time-limited encryption keys, or the use of anonymisation techniques.<\/p>\n<p><strong><u>Immutability and data subject rights<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The immutability of DLT records poses significant challenges to the exercise of data subject rights under the GDPR, particularly the rights to rectification, erasure, and objection. Once data are recorded on the ledger, modification or deletion is generally technically impracticable. Nevertheless, these rights must remain effective and technology-neutral, and controllers cannot invoke technical impossibility as a defence. To reconcile DLTs with these obligations, controllers should consider mitigating measures such as off-chain storage, encryption combined with key deletion, pseudonymisation, or other cryptographic techniques.<\/p>\n<p><strong><u>Privacy by design and by default<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Article 25 GDPR requires controllers to implement data protection by design and by default, meaning that systems and processes must be structured so that only the data necessary for a specific purpose is processed. When controllers rely on DLT, meeting this obligation is particularly challenging, as immutability and transparency are inherent features of the technology. To address this, supervisory authorities advise against storing personal data directly on-chain and recommend instead using off-chain storage combined with on-chain proofs (e.g., hashes, cryptographic commitments, or encrypted references). Nonetheless, it is worth noting that even hashed or encrypted data may still constitute personal data under the GDPR if re-identification is reasonably possible.<\/p>\n<p>We would like to thank F\u00e9lix Marolleau for his contribution to this question.<\/p>\n<p><strong><u>Consumer law<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n<p>When dealing with French consumers, CASPs must comply with French \u201cpublic order\u201d rules (pre-contractual disclosures, unfair terms, remote contracting, language rules, bans on aggressive marketing, access to an ombudsman in the event of a complaint). These apply even if a non-French law governs the consumer contract.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Are there any other key issues concerning blockchain technology in your jurisdiction that legal practitioners should be aware of?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p><strong><u>Asset<\/u><\/strong> <strong><u>management<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Since 30 December 2024, French portfolio management companies may provide crypto-asset portfolio management, advisory and RTO services, provided they hold an equivalent permission under their UCITS\/AIFM licence and have notified the AMF of their intention to provide these services.<\/p>\n<p>In addition, since the introduction of Loi PACTE in 2019, certain French alternative investment funds (\u201cAIFs\u201d) opened to professional investors \u2013 i.e., professional private equity funds (FPCI) and professional specialised funds (FPS) \u2013 have been authorised to invest directly in crypto assets (for FPCI up to 20% of their assets and for FPS subject to applicable liquidity and valuation rules).<\/p>\n<p>Spot crypto ETFs are not authorised for retail investors in the EU, and the AMF has so far prohibited French UCITS from indirect crypto exposure through delta-one certificates. However, with the growing interest among retail investors in alternative assets and the entry into force of MiCA,\u00a0\u00a0 the AMF is now considering allowing such exposure subject to risk management (including a 10% net asset limit), in line with ESMA\u2019s 2025 technical advice; this was under public consultation this summer and has not yet been enacted.<\/p>\n<p>In December 2025, the AMF amended its guidelines to allow distribution of crypto ETNs to retail investors without dissuasive warning, provided that (i) the underlying crypto-assets meet minimum capitalisation, liquidity, and regulatory thresholds (including MiCA white-paper notification and trading on a MiCA-authorised platform), (ii) the ETN tracks crypto-asset performance without leverage and discretionary component, (iii) the ETN issuer owns the underlying crypto-assets directly (or, failing that, obtain exposure through regulated counterparties) and (iv) when the crypto-assets are owned directly by the ETN issuer, they must be held by an EU MiCA-authorised custodian under conditions ensuring segregation, absence of encumbrance, and exclusive allocation to ETN holders. The AMF will reassess this revision in Q.1 2027. Paris Europlace has also recommended improving France\u2019s attractiveness for crypto ETNs, including eligibility as unit-linked life insurance products and a more favourable tax regime.<\/p>\n<p><strong><u>Prediction Markets<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Prediction market platforms, which allow users to trade on the outcome of future events through \u201cevent contracts\u201d, currently lack a dedicated legal regime in France or the EU.<\/p>\n<p>Unlike the US, France has mainly regulated prediction markets under gambling legislation: the French gambling authority (\u201cANJ\u201d) required the geo-blocking of Polymarket and Kalshi from November 2024 and, in July 2026, ordered internet service providers to block Polymarket\u2019s website entirely over illegal advertising and suspected market manipulation (a decision contested by Polymarket).<\/p>\n<p>However, ESMA clarified in July 2026 that certain event contracts could qualify as MiFID II \u201cderivatives\u201d or MiCA \u201ccrypto-assets\u201d, requiring authorisation, and binary options would be prohibited for retail clients under the AMF\u2019s 2019 measures. The AMF has not yet taken an official position.<\/p>\n<p>The EC MiCA Review Consultation likewise asked whether DLT-based prediction markets should fall under MiFID or MiCA.<\/p>\n<p><strong><u>Mining<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n<p>There is no specific regulation of mining in France, although miners may be subject to energy, environmental and tax rules, and to MiCA if they provide regulated crypto-asset services.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\r\n<div class=\"word-count-hidden\" style=\"display:none;\">Estimated word count: <span class=\"word-count\">8962<\/span><\/div>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t<\/ol>\r\n\r\n<script type=\"text\/javascript\" src=\"\/wp-content\/themes\/twentyseventeen\/src\/jquery\/components\/filter-guides.js\" async><\/script><\/div>"}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comparative_guide\/153100","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comparative_guide"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/comparative_guide"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=153100"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}