The UAE, the US, and Europe are all writing the rules for crypto at the same time — and they are not writing the same rulebook. Europe's MiCA transition period ended. The US passed its own stablecoin law. And the UAE is running five different regulators at once. Joining me again is Xavier Gomez, Founder of MUWPAY and Board Member at Banque Delubac & Cie. Xavier, welcome back to Wall Street to Mena.
Thank you. Hello.
MiCA's transitional period in Europe ended on July 1st. What actually changed for crypto companies operating there?
Now it is very simple. Before, you were subject to the local law of every country in Europe. Now you are under MiCA law — which means a European passport. You can hold your MiCA licence in Amsterdam, Lisbon, or Paris and market your virtual digital asset products from anywhere in the EU. This is one of the most important points. It also unifies the market with different players — traditional banks, asset managers, and fintechs dedicated to crypto — all at the same level. And it creates direct responsibility in front of the regulator. Companies holding digital assets now have their own regulatory responsibility and can exchange directly with the supervisor.
Under MiCA, Tether never got authorised as an e-money token issuer. USDT got delisted from EU regulated platforms. Does that protect European consumers or just push them toward less regulated options?
It is a tough question because this was a strategic decision by Tether — whether to follow MiCA or not. USDT is the most important US dollar stablecoin in the world and they decided not to comply. If a consumer still wants to find it, they will find a way — through a foreign centralised exchange. The real question around consumer protection is the idea behind MiCA itself: to protect the final consumer. That is the reason for all the rules on stablecoins — the 1-to-1 reserve requirement, the listed deposit with a custodian, the audited proof of reserves. That is the main objective.
The US passed the GENIUS Act. How does America's approach compare to Europe's?
There is a clear difference. In the US, the stablecoin law is clearly designed to defend the US dollar via stablecoins globally — the design of the law protects the power of the United States around the world. The US approach is also more adaptable. A lot of traditional finance people were surprised by the Trump administration's position, because the mandate is now clear: put US financial markets on-chain. Putting Wall Street on a blockchain is a huge shift in terms of the future products and services that become possible. It is an innovative way to see financial markets going forward.
The UAE runs crypto oversight across five different regulators — VARA, DIFC, the Central Bank, and others. Is that smarter than Europe's one-regulator approach?
In fact, this reflects a clear vision. It is a small country with a powerful position, and it decided to have different regulators in order to cover the whole country with super-specialised expertise in each area. This is clearly more efficient. When you request a licence, you have people in front of you with sharp skills on that specific subject, and they move quickly in processing your files. That is fantastic compared to traditional regulators who have to understand many different business models across many subjects. Europe's approach is different in objective — the goal was to unify 27 countries that had 27 different local laws before MiCA. That was necessary for a unified European market but comes with different trade-offs.
Of the three, which makes it easiest for a company like yours to operate?
It depends on what you mean by easy. The UAE has genuine specialists in front of you who understand what you are doing and process things quickly. Europe is about scale — the market is enormous and the passport is very powerful. The US is about ambition and adaptability. The biggest cost of operating across all three is legal — adapting your legal framework to each jurisdiction with local lawyers and internal systems. That remains the biggest challenge, though AI is now helping to automate some of those processes.
Five years from now, do these three approaches start looking more alike or do they stay permanently different?
I think they will stay different. The known players today are Europe, the US, and the GCC led by the UAE. But what we do not know is what happens in Asia — particularly China. They have a long-term vision that could change things. But whatever happens, I believe it will be better for the final client — more transparent, less fees, and more efficient products and services.
Thank you so much for being with us today Xavier.
Thank you.
