🇪🇺 Two things are true at the same time about the status quo of stablecoins under MICA in the EU: 1️⃣ There are now ~35 regulated e-money tokens from 21 issuers, banks and EMIs alike. Real institutions are betting on this space and many large EU corporations will enter over the next 12 months. Implementation is working well for local issuers. Momentum is real. 2️⃣ Of the top 50 stablecoins globally, only 3 are MiCA-compliant: USDC, USDG, and EURC. The rest sits outside MiCA's perimeter - meaning EU users are either unprotected or cut off. For a framework designed to bring global stablecoin markets under its EU supervision, that's a significant gap. My take: MiCA's review is a chance to make the framework more competitive and globally aligned. Locally issued tokens need to scale beyond EU borders - that's their real value proposition (cross-border payments, tokenized trade vs. an already well-served local payments market). Global regulatory alignment matters most for that. And the goal should be bringing more of the global stablecoin activity under MiCA's umbrella, not outside it. A recognition regime for foreign-regulated tokens could attract global issuers without forcing local issuance as the only current path in. TL;DR: MiCA only becomes a major regulatory success and a global blueprint if it achieves two things simultaneously: 1️⃣ Local EMTs scaling globally via a competitive, innovative regime that is globally aligned 2️⃣ Global stablecoins coming under its perimeter via a pragmatic pathway for foreign-regulated issuers(Patrick Hansen)