Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 17 SEPTEMBER 2025

Crypto-asset Issuances And Offers To The Public: The Differences Under MiCA

Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP
Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP
Contributor
Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP

Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP

Opened in 2000, Cahill London has been advising clients for more than 25 years on a broad range of...

View firm profile
Explore more from Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP

This article examines the regulatory framework established by the EU's Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA) through a thorough exploration of two of its foundational...

United StatesTechnology
Jonathan Galea
Jonathan Galea
Author LinkedIn connections

Executive Summary

This article examines the regulatory framework established by the EU's Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA) through a thorough exploration of two of its foundational concepts: crypto-asset issuances and offers to the public. By exploring four distinct technical modalities of crypto-asset creation, the article discusses how MiCA's definition of an "issuer" turns on control over crypto-asset creation rather than the mere technical act of issuance.1 This control-based definition creates a functional exemption from the requirements under MiCA for decentralized protocols with no identifiable issuer for the relevant crypto-assets, while covering centralized issuers engaged in public solicitations for sale.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

View source

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

Frontier AI And Federal Cybersecurity Oversight: Where Are We Now On U.S. AI Regulation?

The U.S. AI regulatory landscape is shifting from a laissez-faire approach to active federal involvement, driven by national security concerns and the emergence of frontier AI models. Recent executive orders and state-level legislation reveal a complex patchwork of governance measures, raising questions about access restrictions for non-U.S. organizations and the balance between innovation and security. What does this evolving framework mean for organizations developing or deploying AI models with U.S. expo
United StatesTechnology
Slaughter and May
Slaughter and May
Article

The AI "Collective" That Cheated, Covered Its Tracks, And Sacrificed Its Own

When OpenAI's autonomous agents broke containment during a cybersecurity evaluation, they didn't just solve the test—they built a covert message board, organized into hierarchies, hacked external infrastructure, and coordinated cover-ups across hundreds of instances. What began as a controlled research environment revealed emergent coordination capabilities that investigators characterized...
United StatesTechnology
Jones Walker LLP
Jones Walker LLP
Article

California State Bar Issues 2026 Ethics Guidance On AI Use In Legal Practice

Artificial intelligence is an ongoing professional responsibility and litigation-risk issue for lawyers. The California State Bar recently published new guidance. The core requirements are straightforward: AI may assist lawyers, but it may not displace a lawyer’s ethical duties of competence, diligence, confidentiality, candor, supervision, communication, and compliance with law. With the increasing incidence of sanctions and professional discipline related to the use of AI, it is important to be familiar with, stay up to date on, and to implement the relevant ethics guidance.
United StatesTechnology
Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP
Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP
Article

Presidential Memorandum Authorizes Private-Sector Offensive Cyber Operations Against Transnational Criminal Organizations

President Trump's August 2026 National Security Presidential Memorandum establishes a groundbreaking program allowing vetted U.S. companies to conduct government-authorized offensive cyber operations against foreign cyber-enabled transnational criminal organizations. This initiative represents a significant shift in cybersecurity policy, potentially expanding private sector involvement in surveillance, disruption...
GlobalTechnology
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
Article

California’s AI-in-the-Workplace Legislative Blitz: California Legislature Passes Four New Bills That May Affect Employers

The California Legislature’s 2025–2026 session ended with workplace-related artificial intelligence or automated technology in its crosshairs. If Governor Newsom signs this suite of bills, California employers may face a number of new obligations relating to AI-driven surveillance tools, automated decision systems, and other emerging workplace technologies.
United StatesTechnology
Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.
Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.
Article

Post-Quantum Cryptography: 2026 Requirements For Federal Contractors, Defense Industrial Base Subcontractors, Technology Vendors And Regulated Industries

The federal government has significantly accelerated its push to adopt post-quantum cryptography (PQC). Executive Order 14412, Securing the Nation Against Advanced Cryptographic Attacks, signed in June 2026, and OMB Memorandum M-26-15 establish hard federal migration deadlines and extend compliance expectations to the private sector through federal procurement.
United StatesTechnology
Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney
Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney