- Circle asks the EU to scrap MiCA’s 30% bank deposit floor for stablecoin reserves (60% for “significant” tokens) and replace it with a liquidity-based rule.
- Circle also wants two EBA concentration caps removed: the 35% single-sovereign exposure limit and the 1.5% per-bank counterparty limit.
- The Hyperliquid Policy Center wants on-chain perpetual futures regulated as derivatives under MiFID II, not under MiCA.
- Both submissions went to the European Commission’s targeted MiCA review consultation, which closed September 30 after opening May 20.
- The ECB backed Circle’s reserve position on September 22, asking for the same deposit floor deletion.
Circle and the Hyperliquid Policy Center have filed formal responses to the European Commission’s targeted consultation on the review of MiCA, the EU’s crypto rulebook. Both filings ask Brussels to rethink core parts of the framework: how stablecoin issuers hold reserves, and which rulebook governs on-chain perpetual futures.
CIRCLE: SCRAP THE DEPOSIT FLOOR, FIX THE PERIMETER
Circle, issuer of USDC and EURC, is the largest MiCA-authorized e-money token issuer. Its submission targets MiCA’s stablecoin reserve rules head-on.
The central ask is the removal of MiCA’s mandatory bank deposit floor. Issuers must currently keep at least 30% of reserves in commercial bank deposits, rising to 60% for tokens the European Banking Authority deems “significant.” Circle wants that fixed threshold replaced with a looser, liquidity-based test. The company argues forced bank deposits increase exposure to banking-sector credit and counterparty risk rather than reducing it.
Circle is not alone here. The European Central Bank and the European System of Central Banks formally asked the Commission on September 22 to delete the same rule. The central banks argue the deposit floor creates a direct link between stablecoin issuers and banks, so a wave of redemptions could strain bank liquidity at exactly the wrong moment. They want the law to require instead a minimum share of reserves in assets maturing within one to five working days. 
Circle also wants two concentration rules from the EBA’s Level 2 technical standards removed. The first is the 35% cap on single-sovereign exposure, which Circle says makes it impossible for non-EU currency issuers to hold primarily sovereign high-quality liquid assets. A dollar token backed mostly by US Treasuries cannot comply. The second is the cap limiting deposits at each banking counterparty to 1.5% of that bank’s total assets. Circle says large issuers would need relationships with dozens of separate banks to stay under the limit, adding operational complexity and risk.
Beyond reserves, Circle’s filing addresses MiCA’s perimeter problem. Of the top 25 stablecoins by market capitalization, only three are MiCA-regulated: USDC, USDG, and EURC. Circle argues the gap is not a shortage of regulated issuers but a perimeter that fails to capture the largest global tokens, and EU-issued tokens that cannot grow to global scale.
Its answer has two parts. First, preserve multi-issuance: the structure where a globally circulating stablecoin is co-issued by a MiCA-authorized EU entity alongside its foreign-regulated counterpart. Circle calls this the only structure through which global liquidity can operate inside MiCA’s perimeter today, and recommends formalizing safeguards including dynamic rebalancing between global and EU-specific reserves.
Second, build a longer-term equivalence and recognition regime for foreign-regulated stablecoins, modeled on the EU’s existing frameworks under EMIR, CSDR, and MiFIR, and on the US equivalence regime for foreign payment stablecoins under the GENIUS Act. The model is two-tier: the Commission determines regime equivalence, the EBA recognizes the entity, and distribution in the EU happens through a locally licensed institution. The structure would also work in reverse, supporting international circulation of EU-issued stablecoins under reciprocal recognition arrangements.
HYPERLIQUID POLICY CENTER: PERPS BELONG UNDER MIFID II
The Hyperliquid Policy Center, set up in February and funded with 1 million HYPE tokens from the Hyperliquid Foundation, made its first filing outside the US. Its response focuses on on-chain perpetual futures.
The core argument: perps are derivatives and should be assessed under MiFID II, the EU’s existing 2014 rulebook for financial instruments, rather than under MiCA. Classification should follow a product’s economic substance and functionality, not the technology it runs on. The Center wants ESMA to issue guidance on applying MiFID II to on-chain perps, with no new legislation required.
The filing also pushes back on extending CFD-style retail restrictions to on-chain perps. Europe already limits retail access to contracts for difference: leverage caps, margin close-out requirements, negative balance protection. The Center argues those curbs target a specific conflict, the CFD provider acting as the customer’s counterparty. On-chain perps instead match buyers and sellers on a public central limit order book, so the conflict does not exist and the restrictions should not carry over automatically. This matters because ESMA said in February that derivatives marketed as perpetual futures likely fall within existing CFD intervention measures where they meet the CFD definition.
On compliance mechanics, the Center asks regulators to recognize information already available on public blockchains. Independently verifiable on-chain records of trades, funding payments, orders, and liquidations, plus disclosures of funding rates, margin requirements, reference prices, and position-closing rules, should satisfy transparency and reporting obligations. It also calls for rules that preserve access to global liquidity.
WHY IT MATTERS
The two filings pull in the same direction: make the EU framework accommodate products as they actually work instead of forcing them into ill-fitting categories. For stablecoins, the reserve fight is about yield economics. A 60% bank deposit floor drags returns and concentrates bank risk; a liquidity-based rule lets issuers hold more short-term sovereign paper. For perps, MiFID II treatment with order-book recognition would open a path to regulated on-chain derivatives across 27 markets without retail leverage caps designed for dealer-traded CFDs.
The ECB’s backing gives Circle’s reserve argument institutional weight it did not have before. The Commission’s review will feed into its report on MiCA and could inform future legislative proposals. Watch for the Commission’s response, additional issuer filings, and any draft language on reserve floors or perp classification.
REFERENCES
- Circle’s response to the European Commission’s MiCA review consultation (circle.com).
- ECB and ESCB response to the MiCA consultation, September 22, 2026: delete the deposit floor, require reserves in assets maturing within one to five working days.
- ESMA statement, February 2026: derivatives marketed as perpetual futures likely fall within existing CFD intervention measures where they meet the CFD definition.
- US GENIUS Act equivalence regime for foreign payment stablecoins, cited by Circle as a model for EU recognition.
- The Block, Crypto Briefing, crypto.news, BSC News reporting on the filings (Oct 1-2, 2026).
