Non-MiCA stablecoins: ESMA now tells EU crypto firms to stop transfers and custody too — what a merchant paid in USDT should change before January 8, 2027

What ESMA published on October 8, 2026

On Wednesday, October 8, 2026, the European Securities and Markets Authority published an opinion on crypto-asset services involving non-MiCA stablecoins. Its formal title is long — On the provision of crypto asset services in relation to non-MiCA-compliant asset-referenced tokens and e-money tokens — but asset-referenced tokens (ARTs) and e-money tokens (EMTs) are simply MiCA's legal names for stablecoins.

The document is short: five pages, 28 paragraphs. It is addressed to national competent authorities under Article 29(1)(a) of the ESMA Regulation, which makes it a supervisory-convergence tool rather than a new law. In practice, it tells every national supervisor in the EU what to expect from the crypto-asset service providers (CASPs) it has licensed under MiCA.

The operative sentence is paragraph 12 of the opinion itself: “ESMA considers that CASPs should not provide crypto-asset services in relation to ARTs or EMTs that are not compliant with the applicable requirements under MiCA.” Paragraph 21 spells out what “services” means — a CASP that “operates a trading platform, provides exchange services, executes orders, receives and transmits orders, places crypto-assets, provides advice, transfer services, custody, and portfolio management.”

Paragraph 22 turns that into an instruction: CASPs “should not maintain, introduce or facilitate access to non-MiCA compliant ARTs or EMTs for EU clients,” and should build technical, contractual and organisational controls that stop clients from acquiring or increasing positions.

A footnote defines the term. A non-MiCA stablecoin is one for which the conditions for a lawful offer to the public or admission to trading in the EU, under Title III or IV of MiCA, “including any applicable exemptions or transitional arrangements, are not met.” The opinion names no token. CoinDesk's coverage pointed to the obvious one, Tether's USDT, whose issuer has no MiCA authorisation, and also to PayPal's PYUSD. On the other side of the line, Circle has issued USDC and EURC as e-money tokens under a French electronic money institution licence since July 1, 2024.

What changed since January 2025: custody and transfers were the door left open

This is not ESMA's first word on the subject. On January 17, 2025, alongside the European Commission's Q&A 2404, ESMA told CASPs to restrict services involving non-compliant stablecoins by the end of Q1 2025 — but it also said that “mere custody and transfer” of those tokens should remain possible, with sell-only access while clients exited. That carve-out is why, through 2025 and most of 2026, a European could still hold USDT at a licensed platform and move it on.

The October opinion closes it. Side by side:

ESMA's reasoning explains why it went further. In paragraph 13, the risk of servicing a non-compliant stablecoin “do[es] not arise from the provision of the service itself” but is “inherent to the non-compliant status” of the token — the missing issuer safeguards on reserves, redemption and supervision — and “cannot be adequately identified, managed or mitigated through the measures available to the CASP.” A custodian can't fix an issuer's reserve problem by being a careful custodian.

Then paragraph 15, which is the sentence merchants should underline: the issuer rules “would be materially undermined if non-MiCA compliant ARTs or EMTs could remain accessible, usable or liquid in the Union through services provided by authorised CASPs.” Liquid is the target. The opinion isn't aimed at whether you can own USDT. It's aimed at whether you can do anything with it through a licensed EU firm.

What the opinion does not do

Read the headlines and you might think USDT was banned in Europe last week. It wasn't. Four limits matter:

• It doesn't ban ownership. Paragraph 7 says the opinion leaves Q&A 2404 unchanged. Its legal hook is a CASP's own duty, under Article 66(1) of MiCA, to act “honestly, fairly and professionally in the best interests of clients” — not a rule addressed to holders.
• It doesn't mention self-hosted wallets. The phrase appears nowhere in the text. A public blockchain will still move USDT between two wallets whose keys the parties hold; no licensed intermediary is providing that transfer.
• It doesn't apply itself. National supervisors apply it, and ESMA says it will “regularly monitor the timely application.” Expect national differences in pace and detail inside the three-month window.
• It isn't about non-EU businesses. Its subject is EU clients of EU-authorised firms. A merchant in Mexico City or Singapore is not anyone's “EU client” under this text — though its European customers are.

Those limits are real, and they are exactly why the opinion matters to businesses rather than traders. A trader can sell. A business that is paid in a token needs that token to keep moving afterwards.

Non-MiCA stablecoins for merchants: from where you hold to what you hold

In July, when MiCA's transitional period ended and Revolut began delisting USDT across Europe, the merchant lesson was about custody. A balance at a platform could be redenominated on someone else's date; a wallet you control could not. ESMA's January 2025 position backed that reading — custody and transfer were explicitly left open.

Three months later, half of that advice still holds and half has expired.

What still holds: USDT in a wallet whose keys you control is yours. No delisting notice reaches it, and nothing in the opinion asks anyone to take it. (Issuer risk is a separate matter: Tether can freeze addresses, as the Conduit lawsuit shows, and that was true before October 8 too.)

What expired: the assumption that a licensed European exit will be there when you need it. After the wind-down, an EU CASP shouldn't take your USDT in, hold it, convert it to euros for you, or send it on your behalf. For a business, that's not an abstract restriction. It touches the three things you do with revenue:

• Converting to euros for payroll, rent and taxes — at a licensed exchange.
• Paying suppliers and contractors — often through the same platform's transfer service.
• Holding working capital somewhere with reporting your accountant accepts — usually a licensed custodian.

All three run through CASP services that paragraph 21 now covers. That's why the question moves upstream. It's no longer only where your stablecoins land. It's which stablecoin lands, because the token decides which exits stay open.

There's a demand-side effect as well. Europeans who buy stablecoins at an EU-licensed platform will increasingly hold MiCA-compliant ones — USDC above all. A checkout that only offers USDT will meet fewer of them, whether the merchant is in Madrid or Medellín. That matches what we saw in the USDT vs USDC split: USDT dominates cross-border commerce globally, but inside the EU's licensed perimeter the dollar token is USDC.

Who is affected by the non-MiCA stablecoins opinion, case by case

The opinion reaches merchants unevenly. Four situations cover most of the businesses we talk to:

• An EU online store using a custodial crypto gateway. If the gateway is a MiCA-licensed CASP that holds USDT for you before paying out, it falls squarely within the opinion. Expect a notice: USDT acceptance switched off, or balances force-converted, with a date to withdraw or sell. Read it closely, and move settlement to a wallet you control in a token the provider can still service.
• An EU agency or software studio invoicing clients abroad. A design studio in Lisbon paid in USDT by a client in Dubai receives into its own wallet. The tokens are safe, but every exit through a licensed EU firm is closing. The practical fix is upstream: quote future invoices in USDC on a network the client already uses, and work out the plan for existing USDT with counsel while the wind-down window is open.
• A merchant outside the EU selling to Europeans. An online retailer in Bogotá or a tour operator in Cancún isn't a CASP's client, but its European buyers are. As EU platforms clear USDT, those buyers arrive holding USDC. Keep USDT for the customers who use it, and add USDC so the European ones can still pay.
• An EU company paying contractors in USDT through an exchange. The transfer service is in scope, so that payout rail goes. Paying contractors in a MiCA-compliant stablecoin from your own wallet keeps payroll running without an intermediary in the middle.

Where Payzum fits — and where it doesn't

Payzum is a non-custodial, crypto-only payment processor. Customer payments settle directly into wallets the merchant controls; Payzum never holds, pools or controls the money. Settlement is the payment. That shapes how the opinion lands on a Payzum merchant:

• There is no Payzum balance to wind down. Nothing of yours sits with us in USDT or anything else, so there's nothing for anyone to delist, force-convert or put on a countdown.
• You choose what you settle in. With optional auto-convert, accepted crypto can settle in your wallet as USDC or USDT. For an EU business, USDC is the MiCA-compliant one of the two.
• It's fast and final. Confirmations take about 0.4 seconds on Solana and around 2 seconds on Base or Polygon, and on-chain payments carry no chargebacks.
• Payouts go out from your wallet too. Stablecoin payouts on EVM networks (Polygon, Arbitrum, Optimism, Base, BNB Chain, Avalanche) pay contractors and suppliers without a custodial platform in between.

And where it doesn't fit, plainly:

• Payzum doesn't decide legal questions for you. Which tokens an EU business should accept, and whether a given flow touches a licensed service, are questions for your counsel.
• It doesn't settle to a bank account. Payzum is crypto-only; turning USDC into euros happens at a licensed provider you choose.
• TRON isn't supported, and a large share of global USDT circulates there. Auto-convert targets are USDC and USDT; EURC isn't one of them.

How it works, step by step

1. Connect wallets you own. Create an account and add receiving addresses on the networks you need — Bitcoin, Ethereum, Solana, Polygon, Base, Arbitrum, Optimism, BNB Chain or Avalanche.
2. Choose how you charge. Online: hosted checkout (redirect, modal or inline), payment links and buttons, invoices with expiration and overpayment detection, or recurring subscriptions — or a drop-in plugin for WooCommerce, Magento, PrestaShop, Shopware and others. In person: the POS flow with a new QR per sale.
3. Set your settlement token. Turn on auto-convert so accepted crypto settles as USDC in your wallet, or leave it off and receive exactly what the customer sent.
4. Wire it into operations. Signed webhooks feed your order and accounting systems; 2FA and a full audit log cover access; stablecoin payouts handle money going out.

USDT on a platform vs USDT in your wallet vs USDC settled to your wallet

Fair objections

“USDT isn't banned in the EU, so why change anything?”

Correct — owning it isn't banned. But the services that make a token useful to a business are now out of reach at licensed EU firms: exchange, custody, transfers. A token you can hold but not convert, store with a licensed custodian or send through a licensed provider is a token you own, not one you can easily use.

“Our customers outside Europe only have USDT.”

Then keep serving them in USDT; the opinion is about EU clients of EU firms. If you're outside the EU, add USDC alongside USDT so European buyers can still pay. If you're inside the EU, what you accept and how you exit is a conversation for your counsel before January 8 — not after.

“Can't we just use an exchange outside the EU?”

MiCA's transitional period ended on July 1, 2026; since then, firms without MiCA authorisation shouldn't be serving EU clients at all. Routing an EU company's revenue through a provider that shouldn't take you on solves one problem by creating another. Talk to counsel first.

“Doesn't USDC carry issuer risk too?”

Yes. Circle can freeze addresses, as Tether can. MiCA compliance means issuer-level safeguards — reserves, redemption at par, supervision — not immunity. The line ESMA drew on October 8 is narrower and very practical: whether licensed firms may keep servicing the token.