A European Moment for Crypto?

As part of Institut Montaigne’s ongoing effort to define the key policy priorities for France, we are exploring how emerging technologies - like digital assets and blockchain - could shape the future of the economy, public infrastructure and national competitiveness.

As one of the most prominent platforms in the global crypto ecosystem, Coinbase is at the forefront of this transformation.

Charleyne Biondi spoke with Roeland van der Stappen, the company’s Head of EU Policy, on the sidelines of Paris Blockchain Week 2025, to get his take on Europe’s regulatory parth, the principles of responsible innovation, the geopolitics of programmable money, and the opportunity to turn digital assets into a pillar of economic strategy - rather than a missed one.

Addressing Skepticism

Charleyne Biondi (CB): At Institut Montaigne, we are dedicated to exploring pivotal issues that could likely shape France’s future, particularly in the realm of innovation and economic competitiveness. Many people, maybe even a majority of people in France, are not convinced that digital assets truly have a role to play in that regard. Between the various scandals and frauds that have tainted the ecosystem’s reputation and the growing politicisation of crypto, including the recent Trump and Melania meme coins, many struggle to recognize the practical utility of digital assets beyond speculative trading. With that in mind, I’d like to start by addressing the persistent skepticism around digital assets.

Coinbase has been around for over a decade now. You’ve lived through most if not all the different stages of the crypto ecosystem-from the early days of Bitcoin, to NFTs, institutional partnerships, and infrastructure services. What are your views on this massive evolution of digital assets over the last decade? And how do you respond to those who question the utility of digital assets beyond speculation?

Roeland van der Stappen (RS): I think the space has matured a lot, and Coinbase as a company has continuously evolved with it. We're now much more focused on the actual use cases and the value of the technology. And from the government and regulatory side, there's a deeper understanding of what this is all about.

If you look at the last couple of years-post-FTX, with MiCA, the consultations from the European Commission and ESMA-you can see that there's a growing interest and willingness to build regulatory clarity. That’s something we’ve always advocated for because this space deserves the same regulatory clarity as traditional finance. The rules won’t be exactly the same because the technology is different, but there should be parity in treatment.

We’re already seeing this shift toward institutional use. We’re working with BlackRock on tokenizing money market funds. Our Layer 2 network BASE is one of the most popular. We’re supporting for example digital product passports with companies, using our infrastructure. Governments or international organisations are going on-chain too-USAID and U.N., for instance. Public blockchains improve transparency and efficiency.

But there’s still a lot of education needed. For many people crypto still gets labeled as speculative, but often they do not see that these tokens for example secure networks that are core infrastructure for applications. These networks have value, even if the tokens aren’t used as currencies.

We want to highlight those good use cases, and help move the conversation beyond meme coins. This is a strategic technology.

European Regulation: Driver or Drag on Innovation?

CB: Now, since it’s Paris Blockchain Week, I’d like to dive into the Markets in Crypto Assets regulation (MiCA). The EU is sometimes mocked for its regulatory zeal - but in the case of digital finance, many argue that fresh, forward-looking rules could be just what’s needed for growth. How did Coinbase welcome the MiCA regulation? How are you navigating the implementation phase, and what challenges are you encountering?

RS: So, when I joined Coinbase about six or seven months ago, MiCA was already something that people internally looked at quite positively. It was the first comprehensive regulatory framework of its kind.

It’s also the biggest compliance exercise this company has ever undertaken - and we’re still not there yet. From a Level 1 perspective, MiCA makes a lot of sense. Especially the rules for crypto service providers like ourselves: no commingling of accounts, market integrity provisions - they’re straightforward and sensible.

On the stablecoin side, however, we do think the rules went a bit too far. They’re very restrictive - for example, there are capital requirements of up to 2-3% of reserves, and depending on whether you’re systemic or not, 30-60% of those reserves must be in cash. That makes the business model for e-money token issuance in the EU very challenging.

We understand that when these rules were put together, there were concerns around monetary sovereignty - triggered by Libra, and later the collapse of Terra Luna. But other jurisdictions have since come up with more proportionate frameworks, and we hope the EU will evolve in that direction as well.

Take, for example, the custody of assets - we want to leverage our global infrastructure. Similar to the debate around data localization in tech, we believe global systems are more secure and reduce single points of failure, while still maintaining necessary control within the region.

So those are the discussions we’re having with our national competent authority as we move toward getting our MiCA authorization. It’s all about interpretation and, to some extent, the political zeitgeist.

CB: So will this ultimately depend on the interpretation of each national authority? Or can the rules still be adjusted at the EU level?

RS: There’s a very clear EU-level framework, and ESMA is pushing for a convergent interpretation. But we believe a balance can be found - though it requires ongoing dialogue.

The U.S. Regulatory Perspective

CB: You mentioned the U.S. earlier. What do you believe is likely to emerge under the current administration? The SEC has launched a major consultation-what are your expectations for Congress or other developments?

RS: There will likely be two main bills: one on stablecoins and one on market structure.

For market structure, our expectation is that the rules for players like us won’t be materially different from those in the EU. The core principles-how to do custody, manage conflicts of interest, uphold market integrity-those should be largely aligned.

That said, there may be differences in how tokens are treated when they first launch. In the EU, a token might start as a security under MiFID and then shift under MiCA as it becomes decentralized. The U.S. may take a slightly different path with more flexibility.

Another difference is that the U.S. will probably introduce an equivalence regime-something the EU hasn’t included. That’s something we hope for in the EU as well, maybe in a future MiCA 2.

More broadly, what will differ in the U.S. is the political appetite to push forward on tokenized capital markets and an open, permissionless blockchain infrastructure. That ambition is clear in the U.S. executive order, and hopefully the EU follows.

Monetary Sovereignty: What Role for Stablecoins?

CB: Let’s move to geopolitics. Some analysts are suggesting that the U.S. is actually betting on dollar-backed stablecoins to reinforce dollar dominance. What role do you think digital assets play in enhancing or challenging economic sovereignty?

RS: You could also flip the question-there’s an opportunity for euro-denominated stablecoins to grow, especially if we push for an equivalence model. There’s no reason they shouldn’t be used abroad.

We are seeing increased interest, but from a low base. Most liquidity today is still tied to U.S. dollar stablecoins. That may evolve naturally as EU order books grow.

There are also different use cases to consider: stablecoins can be settlement assets, means of payment, or collateral. In capital markets, euro stablecoins can play an important role. Once tokenized capital markets take off in the EU, I think demand will follow.

What’s next?

CB: Looking ahead, what do you hope will be achieved by this new edition of the Paris Blockchain Week? From Coinbase’s perspective, and for the broader ecosystem?

RS: This is actually my first Paris Blockchain Week, so I’m curious to see what comes out of it. But I think the key for us is to turn the page on MiCA. We’ve talked about it for a long time-it’s time to start focusing on utility.

That means bringing commerce and governments on-chain, talking about tokenized capital markets, and recognizing this as a strategic technology.

France has been forward-thinking in this space. It’s one of the few countries seriously considering DeFi, certification, and integration into traditional finance. That’s something we really appreciate.

There’s also a lot of excitement on the developer side. New protocols and applications are being built. I hope France, and the EU more broadly, can grow those ecosystems.

And finally, I’d love to see governments themselves become more open to blockchain-using it for transparency, efficiency, even issuing bonds. That’s already happening in Germany and France. I hope we can help identify and promote best practices globally, and that France stays at the forefront.

CB: If Europe gets its digital asset strategy right - not just on regulation, but in terms of broader adoption and transformation - what could be unlocked in terms of economic gains, sovereignty, and competitiveness? And on the other hand, if we fail to act or fail to follow through, what’s at stake?

RS: That’s a big question, but I’ll try to give a few initial thoughts. 

On sovereignty - we talk a lot in the EU about digital sovereignty, GDPR, and reducing reliance on big tech platforms. If Web3 delivers, public blockchains and the apps built on them could help realize that vision. This could reduce dependency and enforce privacy and transparency in new ways.

RS: And then there’s the real economy. Blockchain can improve supply chains, increase transparency - all while helping companies meet regulatory goals without imposing heavy compliance burdens.

So yes, the opportunity is real. But if we fail to act - if we regulate and then don’t implement - we risk losing that momentum. And we may fall behind others who are ready to take the lead.

Copyright image : Justin TALLIS / AFP