Outcomes · what the research concluded — and how well it holds up
B+
REPORT TRUST
0.81 · verified
Bottom line
EU stablecoin issuers operate under a strict, well-codified reserve regime that is strong on paper but largely untested in enforcement. The reserve rules themselves are consensual and primary-sourced; the open questions are about practice — enforcement, stress resilience, and the gap between issuer self-reporting and independent verification.
3 things you must know
- ≥100% reserve backing + 30% credit-institution custody is settled law (4 primary sources).
- The regime is de-jure strict, de-facto untested — zero enforcement actions found.
- Issuer self-reported figures are trust-capped; one reserve-adequacy claim is controversial.
Biggest threat to these conclusions
The "untested enforcement" finding rests partly on absence of evidence. A single published enforcement action would weaken it.
Conclusions we can’t yet make 2 gaps
Customer-redemption resilience · non-EUR issuer exposure — no primary evidence yet
6 conclusions14 atomic claims11 verified2 contested1 controversial✓ internally consistenthuman-verified 3 / 14
Conclusions · strongest support first
!
The MiCA regime is strong on paper but largely untested in enforcement.
Well-supported · partly contested2 atomic claims · 1 verified14 facts · 9 sources3 / 4 angles agreeconfidence 0.78
support78%
✓
Issuers must hold ≥100% reserves, with ≥30% in an EU credit institution.
Consensual1 atomic claim · ✓ verified9 facts · 6 sources4 / 4 angles agreeconfidence 0.94
support94%
⚔
Reserve adequacy may be overstated under stress — T-bill mark-to-market is a live risk.
Controversial2 atomic claims · 0 verified6 facts · 4 sources2 / 4 angles · 2 dissentconfidence 0.55
support55%