Malta’s premier securities regulator stated Tuesday that all MiCA licenses currently in place on the island nation are protected from revocation or other forms of review stemming from a peer evaluation recently conducted by the European Union’s top securities and markets authority.

“No MiCA license in Malta is at risk of revocation or re-evaluation as a result of the peer review outcomes,” a spokesperson for the Malta Financial Services Authority told Cointelegraph.

The assurance came after the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) concluded an evaluation focusing on certain compliance gaps related to MiCA across several EU regulators, including the MFSA.

In its post-review statement, the MFSA emphasized its commitment to “ongoing cooperation with EU authorities.” This stance appears to counteract “some level of skepticism” within the wider crypto community concerning Malta’s regulatory capacity.

Pioneering Role Recognized

The Financial Services Authority spokesperson noted that the ESMA findings “recognized the regulator as a highly effective supervisor.” He added, “This is not surprising considering that Malta was a pioneer in crypto regulation way back in 2018, long before MiCA was formally contemplated.”

Nathan Catania, a consultant with crypto-focused firm XReg, echoed this view, stating, “I think the review paints Malta in a good light; many forget that the Maltese authorities had already established regulatory frameworks for crypto asset service providers before the EU harmonization effort.”

Indeed, since introducing trailblazing crypto-related legislation in 2018, Malta solidified its reputation as a major pioneer in European crypto-regulatory landscape. The MFSA highlighted this point in a 2018 statement, noting: “Malta is the first country to regulate DLT and crypto assets in such a holistic manner, covering both the technological as well as the financial services components.”

Implementation of Recommendations Expected by September 2025

The ESMA’s review detailed several specific recommendations addressed to the MFSA and other European National Competent Authorities (NCAs), aiming to strengthen compliance under MiCA.

Key areas requiring attention highlighted by the EU regulator concerned timely assessments of crypto service providers’ expansion plans, stricter scrutiny on potential conflicts of interest particularly for entities juggling multiple service categories, and comprehensive risk evaluations related to exposure to DeFi protocols and unlicensed offerings.

MFSA CEO Kenneth Farrugia used the review findings to reiterate confidence, stating, “We trust that this review gives further confidence to those considering licensing in Malta and our peers with respect to our framework for cross-border supervision.”

He responsible that the authority is “aiming to fully implement the majority of the recommendations by the specified deadline of September 2025.”

Implications Broad for All EU Regulators

Taking pains to contextualize the exercise, a stated ESMA spokesperson clarified that the peer review focused primarily on the MFSA’s supervisory methodology, not the operational specifics of organizations granted authorization.

“In the future, ESMA will continue using the peer review tool when it is appropriate, including in relation to other jurisdictions and topics.”

The review underscores that the benefits to participating regulators extend beyond Malta. The recommendations, while hyper-focused on the Maltese case, offer common markers for other NCAs to refine their own cryptocurrency oversight.

Enduring Skepticism Regarding Malta’s Crypto Approach

Despite the ESMA’s generally positive assessment regarding Malta’s regulatory effectiveness, the nation’s historical track record with attracting — and subsequently seeing departures from — crypto enterprises continues to face criticisms.

Experiences like the 2020 episode where many would-be applicants reportedly struggled to obtain the initial necessary licenses, and studies noting the departure of approximately 85% of early crypto firms within two years, still form part of the ongoing discourse.

Specific instances cited include assumptions that prompted investigations, such as the operation of failed exchange FTX being hosted by a Malta-registered entity (though not licensed locally), and critiques suggesting Graze “meaningwhiles” operational risks by briefly unregulated firms during transition.

Related: ESMA launches peer review into Malta’s crypto regulation