Revolut Secures MiCA License To Offer 280 Tokens Across Europe

[yhiaali3]

Revolut has secured a Markets in Crypto Assets license from the Cyprus Securities and Exchange Commission, enabling regulated digital asset services across all 30 European Economic Area markets. The fintech giant, serving over 65 million customers globally, emphasized that the authorization reinforces its compliance-focused approach to offering blockchain-based financial products.

The company plans to launch Crypto 2.0, an enhanced platform providing access to more than 280 tokens alongside zero-fee staking with yields reaching 22% annually. Direct 1:1 stablecoin-to-dollar conversions without spread charges will also be available, according to Thursday's announcement from the firm.

https://coinmarketcap.com/academy/article/revolut-secures-mica-license-to-offer-280-tokens-across-europe

This license allows Revolut to offer regulated cryptocurrency services in 30 countries within the European Economic Area. This is a major step toward European expansion.
Costas Michael, CEO of Revolut Digital Assets Europe, said the license “enhances transparency and trust for our customers across Europe.”

Revolut is not the only company to have obtained a MiCA license; other companies, such as Blockchain.com and Gemini, have also obtained similar licenses.

[Free Market Capitalist]

I don't know what to think about this news, I'm leaning towards “meh.”  Basically, Revolut has managed to get through the entire regulatory process in order to offer digital junk. If the EU cared about what really matters, either the MiCA law would not exist or they would not allow digital junk to be offered. But it has been clear for some time that the EU is living in a constant hallucination, so nothing new here.

[zasad@]

I don't know what to think about this news, I'm leaning towards “meh.”  Basically, Revolut has managed to get through the entire regulatory process in order to offer digital junk. If the EU cared about what really matters, either the MiCA law would not exist or they would not allow digital junk to be offered. But it has been clear for some time that the EU is living in a constant hallucination, so nothing new here.

I don't see a problem with this.
In Russia, there are still no licensed companies that can trade various shitcoins, and the central bank prohibits banks from adding cryptocurrency trading to their apps. As a result, Russian crypto investors trade on Asian platforms and other services, and the state receives no taxes from this.

[Lucius]

I don't know what to think about this news, I'm leaning towards “meh.”  Basically, Revolut has managed to get through the entire regulatory process in order to offer digital junk. If the EU cared about what really matters, either the MiCA law would not exist or they would not allow digital junk to be offered. But it has been clear for some time that the EU is living in a constant hallucination, so nothing new here.

I have the same opinion. On the one hand, they want to have everything under their control, and on the other hand, they don't care that a lot of people will lose a lot of money by investing in tokens that have no purpose or meaning. It is important that everything is regulated and that everyone must be KYC.

When you mention hallucinations, these days I read the news that the EU wants to ban ethanol in hand sanitizer, while on the other hand the same thing does not bother them in alcoholic beverages. There is no doubt that there are many who hallucinate in the corridors of European bureaucracy.

[Free Market Capitalist]

I don't see a problem with this.
In Russia, there are still no licensed companies that can trade various shitcoins, and the central bank prohibits banks from adding cryptocurrency trading to their apps. As a result, Russian crypto investors trade on Asian platforms and other services, and the state receives no taxes from this.

Probably because you're looking at it from a Russian perspective. My criticism is not so much that the EU allows such trading, but rather that it is the largest bureaucratic network in the world.  I think that either they believe in the free market and let the private sector operate without so much bureaucracy, or if they take a regulatory approach, then it would be better to ban this, but any country that decides to ban it should ensure that it is not easy to circumvent the ban.

I have the same opinion. On the one hand, they want to have everything under their control, and on the other hand, they don't care that a lot of people will lose a lot of money by investing in tokens that have no purpose or meaning. It is important that everything is regulated and that everyone must be KYC.

I'm glad we agree on something once in a while; it can't all be disagreement.

[stompix]

I don't know what to think about this news, I'm leaning towards “meh.”  Basically, Revolut has managed to get through the entire regulatory process in order to offer digital junk. If the EU cared about what really matters, either the MiCA law would not exist or they would not allow digital junk to be offered. But it has been clear for some time that the EU is living in a constant hallucination, so nothing new here.

You have this impression because the author, who was probably paid $5 to ask ChatGPT to write an article, didn't bother with the details.

The correct title should have been:
"Revolut secures Mica license, PLANS to offer 280 tokens across Europe".
Revolut can plan whatever they want, if the tokens itself no not pass regulations, they will not be able to offer them under their license, art 34 and 44 basically give any state the power to deny any exchange of a token, so if Revolut gets a license but Poland doesn't like catsdogsandparrotswithhats token is issued by a no name company located in Aruba or not even a company at all,  Revolut will not be able to allow polish citizens to trade that thing.

[zasad@]

I don't see a problem with this.
In Russia, there are still no licensed companies that can trade various shitcoins, and the central bank prohibits banks from adding cryptocurrency trading to their apps. As a result, Russian crypto investors trade on Asian platforms and other services, and the state receives no taxes from this.

Probably because you're looking at it from a Russian perspective. My criticism is not so much that the EU allows such trading, but rather that it is the largest bureaucratic network in the world.  I think that either they believe in the free market and let the private sector operate without so much bureaucracy, or if they take a regulatory approach, then it would be better to ban this, but any country that decides to ban it should ensure that it is not easy to circumvent the ban.

If I understand you correctly, despite all the differences, the same laws of the capitalist market apply in Russia and Europe.
The largest share of the tasty pie will go to the largest companies, those with sufficient resources to overcome all bureaucratic obstacles.And any ban, as in Russia, leads to development retardation and the emergence of a shadow market.

[Free Market Capitalist]

You have this impression because the author, who was probably paid $5 to ask ChatGPT to write an article, didn't bother with the details.

The correct title should have been:
"Revolut secures Mica license, PLANS to offer 280 tokens across Europe".
Revolut can plan whatever they want, if the tokens itself no not pass regulations, they will not be able to offer them under their license, art 34 and 44 basically give any state the power to deny any exchange of a token, so if Revolut gets a license but Poland doesn't like catsdogsandparrotswithhats token is issued by a no name company located in Aruba or not even a company at all,  Revolut will not be able to allow polish citizens to trade that thing.

Lol. It had been a while since I'd seen you in a thread, and I was wondering if you'd taken a break from the forum, but I see that's not the case. Thanks for the powerful insight.

If I understand you correctly, despite all the differences, the same laws of the capitalist market apply in Russia and Europe.
The largest share of the tasty pie will go to the largest companies, those with sufficient resources to overcome all bureaucratic obstacles.And any ban, as in Russia, leads to development retardation and the emergence of a shadow market.

I agree with you quite a bit, and I think you've analyzed how things work correctly. The only point on which I differ is that there are cases in which, if a ban is properly enforced by the state, it greatly reduces the activity that is being banned.

[yhiaali3]

I don't know what to think about this news, I'm leaning towards “meh.”  Basically, Revolut has managed to get through the entire regulatory process in order to offer digital junk. If the EU cared about what really matters, either the MiCA law would not exist or they would not allow digital junk to be offered. But it has been clear for some time that the EU is living in a constant hallucination, so nothing new here.

You have this impression because the author, who was probably paid $5 to ask ChatGPT to write an article, didn't bother with the details.

The correct title should have been:
"Revolut secures Mica license, PLANS to offer 280 tokens across Europe".
Revolut can plan whatever they want, if the tokens itself no not pass regulations, they will not be able to offer them under their license, art 34 and 44 basically give any state the power to deny any exchange of a token, so if Revolut gets a license but Poland doesn't like catsdogsandparrotswithhats token is issued by a no name company located in Aruba or not even a company at all,  Revolut will not be able to allow polish citizens to trade that thing.

Although I don't like this European bureaucracy and the strict European regulations that turn the crypto market in Europe into a centralized police state that controls everything, I somewhat agree with this point.

I mean, if European governments refuse to allow the trading of some of these ridiculous tokens or memes that carry high risks and can cause significant losses, then perhaps that's a good thing for European users.

[zasad@]

If I understand you correctly, despite all the differences, the same laws of the capitalist market apply in Russia and Europe.
The largest share of the tasty pie will go to the largest companies, those with sufficient resources to overcome all bureaucratic obstacles.And any ban, as in Russia, leads to development retardation and the emergence of a shadow market.

I agree with you quite a bit, and I think you've analyzed how things work correctly. The only point on which I differ is that there are cases in which, if a ban is properly enforced by the state, it greatly reduces the activity that is being banned.

Wealth owners don't like restrictions. Russia is currently the leading sanctions country, but there's nothing stopping people with money from circumventing these sanctions legally. If investors in Europe are banned from investing in cryptocurrencies, they will migrate to other markets.

[Lucius]

I have the same opinion. On the one hand, they want to have everything under their control, and on the other hand, they don't care that a lot of people will lose a lot of money by investing in tokens that have no purpose or meaning. It is important that everything is regulated and that everyone must be KYC.

I'm glad we agree on something once in a while; it can't all be disagreement.

You know, it's not even bad to have different opinions, because if we all agree on everything and think the same thing then we're in big trouble. People should always strive to question every idea and law that is imposed on them and not accept everything without question.

We may disagree on some things when it comes to the US and its policies, but I also disagree with a lot of what's happening in the EU.

~snip~
I mean, if European governments refuse to allow the trading of some of these ridiculous tokens or memes that carry high risks and can cause significant losses, then perhaps that's a good thing for European users.

It is unlikely that there is any intention to protect people from themselves, but in the background there are probably some other games in which those who make laws have their own interests. Those who want to invest in something will always find a way to do it, regardless of all obstacles.

[yhiaali3]

~snip~
I mean, if European governments refuse to allow the trading of some of these ridiculous tokens or memes that carry high risks and can cause significant losses, then perhaps that's a good thing for European users.

It is unlikely that there is any intention to protect people from themselves, but in the background there are probably some other games in which those who make laws have their own interests. Those who want to invest in something will always find a way to do it, regardless of all obstacles.

I certainly agree with you in questioning the intentions of governments towards their citizens in general, and especially in the crypto space. I believe that the last thing that matters to governments is protecting their citizens from themselves, and they likely have other goals behind these laws. But, despite this, this particular point still serves the users directly or indirectly.