1. Blockchain regulation versus innovation in the EU - TOC

This is the first post in a series through which I intend to share the whole content of my Master's in EU Law dissertation.

If have explained the initial assumptions and the problem this work is addressing in my previous post.


I start with the Summary:
(links will be added to the content as it is published)


Part 1. Blockchain innovation
Chapter 1.1. Historical determinants of well-being and prosperity
1.1.1. The EU: a “state-like” institution fostering “predictable behaviours” and cooperation

1.1.2. Cooperation and collective action: the dichotomy between “state” and “community”
1.1.3. Engines of prosperity: technological innovation and institutions

Chapter 1.2 Crypto-assets and blockchain technology
1.2.1. Without Bitcoin, we wouldn’t be here today

1.2.2. Crypto-assets are not primarily a technological innovation
1.2.3. The “blockchain” pattern and the role of decentralization

Chapter 1.3. The three avenues of blockchain innovation
1.3.1. States discourage stateless cooperation

1.3.2. The importance of permissionless innovation
1.3.3. Blockchains and the end of the Western civilization
Concluding remarks

Part 2. The MiCA regulation
Chapter 2.1. The case for regulation
2.1.1. Economic growth, innovation, and the impact of regulation

2.1.2. MiCA’s regulatory context
2.1.3. EU’s and US approaches to the “innovation vs. regulation” dilemma

Chapter 2.2. An analysis of MiCA’s provisions
2.2.1. MiCA’s legal basis and objectives

2.2.2. MiCA in a nutshell – definitions and scope
2.2.3. MiCA in a nutshell – rules and red tape

Chapter 2.3. MiCA, blockchain innovation and consumer protection
2.3.1. MiCA does not support “Northern” (institutional) innovation

2.3.2. MiCA does not support “Coasian” (market) innovation
2.3.3. MiCA cannot provide a high level of consumer protection
Concluding remarks

Part 3. Advancing the European project with blockchain and MiCA
Chapter 3.1. MiCA legitimises the crypto-asset class
3.1.1. Blockchain controversy

3.1.2. Crypto-asset controversy
3.1.3. Crypto-asset-linked actors have now a law to abide by

Chapter 3.2. MiCA and crypto-asset innovation
3.2.1. Credit institutions and investment firms as potential ART and EMT issuers

3.2.2. Traditional financial intermediaries as crypto-asset issuers and CASPs
3.2.3. Crypto-assets and public institutions

Chapter 3.3. Blockchain innovation and the EU project going forward
3.3.1. MiCA brings no specific solution to blockchain-specific legal challenges

3.3.2. MiCA, enterprise blockchains and crypto-assets, and the EU “digital age”
3.3.3. The contribution of third-country innovation
Concluding remarks

General conclusions


I would like to thank Professor Bruno Deffains who accepted to direct my thesis and who accompanied and advised me during its elaboration.
I am grateful to Dr. Godefroy de Moncuit who has put together a great study curriculum covering the most important and interesting chapters of EU Law and managed to have the classes taught by some of the best teachers and academics in the field.
I am particularly grateful to my wife, Iuliana, and my daughters, Caroline, and Eva Maria, who supported me during these two “packed” years of combining studying with a full-time job.
My sincerest thanks to all the people who have read and commented on the manuscript, and especially to Wim Stalmans from “The Blockchain Academy”, Oliver Beige, and Preston Byrne.


The content of this document does not reflect the official opinion of the European Union or the European Commission. Responsibility for the information and views expressed therein lies entirely with the author.

3 columns
2 columns
1 column