Crypto‑Lawyer Warns U.S. “Clarity Act” May Replicate EU’s MiCA Missteps
Washington, D.C., Feb. 25, 2026 – As Congress debates the so‑called “Clarity Act,” a proposed piece of legislation intended to bring certainty to the rapidly evolving U.S. digital‑asset market, a leading cryptocurrency attorney cautions that the bill could repeat the structural flaws that have plagued the European Union’s Markets in Crypto‑Assets (MiCA) framework.
Yuriy Brisov, a partner at the New York‑based boutique firm Brisov & Partners and a long‑time advisor to blockchain startups, told Crypto Ledger that the U.S. effort risks “mirroring the same top‑down, one‑size‑fits‑all approach that has already proven burdensome in Europe.”
The EU Experience: MiCA’s Growing Pains
MiCA, which entered into force in early 2024, was hailed as the first comprehensive regulatory regime for crypto‑assets across the bloc. Its objectives—protecting consumers, preventing money‑laundering, and fostering market integrity—were widely praised. Yet, critics quickly identified several practical issues:
- Licensing bottlenecks. Companies offering crypto‑related services must obtain a “crypto‑asset service provider” (CASP) license from national authorities, a process that many argue is lengthy and costly.
- Limited scope for innovation. The regulation’s strict definition of “crypto‑assets” excludes a range of emerging token models, leaving developers uncertain whether their projects qualify.
- Fragmented enforcement. Although MiCA is an EU‑wide law, each member state retains discretion over supervisory powers, creating a patchwork of requirements that diminishes the hoped‑for harmonisation.
These challenges have contributed to a slowdown in European fintech investment and prompted some firms to relocate to jurisdictions with lighter regulatory footprints.
The U.S. “Clarity Act”: Aiming for Certainty
The Clarity Act, introduced by a bipartisan group of senators, seeks to address the regulatory vacuum that currently exists in the United States. The bill proposes:
- A single, federal licensing regime for crypto‑asset custodians, exchanges and other service providers.
- Clear definitions of token categories—utility, security and “stable‑coin” classifications.
- Mandatory compliance with existing anti‑money‑laundering (AML) and know‑your‑customer (KYC) rules, with additional reporting obligations for large‑scale platforms.
Proponents argue that a unified framework would eliminate the patchwork of state‑level rules that have hindered market growth.
Brisov’s Concerns: Structural Parallels with MiCA
According to Brisov, the Clarity Act shares three core design features that, in Europe, have led to unintended consequences:
| EU MiCA Issue | Parallel in the Clarity Act | Potential Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Centralised licensing authority (national supervisors) | Federal licensing body with broad discretionary power | May create a bottleneck for new entrants, especially smaller startups lacking legal resources |
| Rigid token definitions | Fixed categories that could become outdated as technology evolves | Projects that fall outside the prescribed classes risk being excluded or forced to re‑engineer |
| State‑level enforcement discretion (even under EU law) | Ambiguity over whether agencies like the SEC, CFTC, or FinCEN will have overlapping jurisdiction | Could foster regulatory arbitrage and increase compliance complexity |
“Regulation that is too prescriptive can stifle the very innovation it intends to protect,” Brisov said in an interview. “We need a framework that provides certainty without locking the market into a static set of rules.”
Industry Reaction
- Crypto exchanges have expressed cautious optimism, noting that a clear licensing pathway could simplify onboarding for institutional clients. However, several midsized platforms have warned that the cost of compliance could become prohibitive if the licensing process is drawn out.
- Venture capital firms emphasised the importance of a “sandbox” approach, where regulators work alongside startups to test new products before formal approval.
- Consumer‑advocacy groups applauded the emphasis on AML/KYC but called for stronger safeguards around data privacy and transparent disclosure of token risks.
Potential Outcomes
- If the Act adopts a flexible, tiered licensing model, smaller innovators may receive provisional approvals, preserving the pipeline of new products while maintaining oversight.
- A rigid, one‑size‑fits‑all licensing regime could push U.S. firms toward friendlier jurisdictions, repeating the talent and capital outflow observed after MiCA’s rollout.
- Incorporating a regulatory sandbox—a controlled environment for experimentation—might balance innovation with consumer protection, a compromise that has worked in other fintech sectors.
Key Takeaways
- Structural similarity: Brisov argues the Clarity Act mirrors EU MiCA’s top‑down licensing model, which has been criticized for creating compliance bottlenecks.
- Flexibility is crucial: Industry stakeholders stress the need for adaptable definitions and tiered licensing to accommodate rapid technological change.
- Regulatory coordination: Clear delineation of authority among U.S. agencies (SEC, CFTC, FinCEN) will be essential to avoid overlapping enforcement and legal uncertainty.
- Potential market impact: Overly burdensome requirements could deter startups and drive business to jurisdictions with lighter regulation, while a balanced approach could boost U.S. leadership in crypto innovation.
As the Clarity Act moves toward committee hearings, its final language will likely determine whether the United States can avoid the pitfalls that have already been observed in Europe’s first comprehensive crypto‑asset regime.
Source: https://magazine.cointelegraph.com/clarity-act-micas-defi-mistake-lawyer-warns/?utm_source=rss_feed&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=rss_partner_inbound
