Europe is once again discussing what the next stage of crypto regulation should look like. One of the authors of MiCA believes that Brussels should not rush to introduce separate rules for DeFi. He called tokenization of real assets a more practical direction.
This approach seems logical for regulators. Tokenized funds, bonds, and deposits usually have an issuer, manager, or other responsible party. This means it is easier to apply existing rules to them than to protocols that operate via smart contracts without a single operator.
MiCA Moves to the Next Review
The European crypto regulation is approaching an important date. Starting July 1, service providers must operate under a MiCA license or stop serving clients in the EU.
Against this backdrop, the European Commission is gathering opinions about the future of regulation. Consultations began in May and will continue until August 31. After that, it will become clear which parts of the market Brussels considers a priority for the new wave of rules.
Peter Kerstens, who participated in the development of MiCA, does not consider the current regime outdated. According to him, the consultations should show whether the next step is needed and where it is truly justified.
It Is Difficult to Fit DeFi Into Standard Rules
Decentralized finance was included as a topic for discussion as a potential source of risk. But the idea of quickly writing a separate set of rules for it raises questions.
The main problem is that traditional law works with people, companies, and organizations. If a service is truly just a set of smart contracts without a managing company, a simple question arises: who exactly should be regulated?
Kerstens describes DeFi as a movement without official representatives. By his logic, if there is no clear problem and no specific party to which a rule can be applied, there is no need to rush to regulate such a segment.
Tokenization Gives Regulators a Clear Entry Point
With real assets, the situation is different. When a bond, fund, deposit, or other financial instrument is moved to the blockchain, there is usually a specific structure behind it. There is an issuer, custodian, manager, client base, and clear obligations.
That is why tokenization seems like a more convenient topic for the next stage. It allows for the development of on-chain infrastructure without immediately entering the most controversial part of the market.
For traditional finance, this is also a more understandable route. Banks, asset managers, and exchanges find it easier to work with tokenized instruments than with fully decentralized protocols where there is no single center of responsibility.
The DeFi Debate Will Return Anyway
The topic cannot be postponed for long. The European Central Bank has previously questioned the claim of complete decentralization of DAOs.
A working paper examined major protocols, including Aave, MakerDAO, Ampleforth, and Uniswap. The authors concluded that in each case, the 100 largest holders of governance tokens controlled more than 80% of the supply on selected dates.
For regulators, this is an important argument. If control is concentrated among a small group of participants, the project may appear less decentralized than claimed. In that case, authorities will start looking for points of rule application through funds, interfaces, developers, large holders, or access providers.
The Main Question Is the Degree of Control
The discussion is not about the existence of DeFi itself, but about the level of controllability. It is one thing to have a fully autonomous protocol without an operator. It is another to have a project with a team, fund, major token holders, and an interface through which most users access the service.
If such points of control exist, regulators will try to work through them. If not, the standard model of oversight really starts to stall.
Therefore, the future debate will revolve around definitions. What should be considered a “fully decentralized” service, and what is a financial product with distributed but still manageable control?
What Is Next?
Until the end of August, the European Commission will be collecting comments on the future of MiCA. After that, it will become clear whether the EU is preparing a separate package for new segments or will first focus on tokenization and broader digital assets.
For now, the signal seems cautious. Brussels is not abandoning the study of DeFi, but one of the key authors of MiCA suggests not starting with it.
The main conclusion is simple. The EU may choose a more pragmatic path: first develop rules for tokenized assets, where there are clear participants and obligations. And leave the DeFi question until regulators more precisely determine where the protocol ends and the managed financial structure begins.
Read More: Ethereum Is Once Again Discussing Private Tokens
