In today’s fast-moving digital economy, the world of finance and technology is once again showing how quickly landscapes can shift. From evolving oversight debates among global regulators to fresh updates in the tools that keep decentralized networks running, these changes remind us that innovation never stands still. While new policies can spark questions about fairness and trust, technical improvements often promise smoother and more accessible experiences for everyday users. Together, these developments highlight the constant balance between progress and protection one that continues to shape how people, businesses, and communities interact with the growing digital frontier.
1. France (with Italy & Austria) Threatens to Block “Passported” Crypto Licenses Under MiCA Push for Centralized Oversight
France’s financial regulator (AMF), joined by Italian and Austrian counterparts, has voiced strong concerns that under the EU’s new MiCA (Markets in Crypto-Assets) regulation, some member states are issuing crypto licences with weaker standards, which firms then use to “passport” across the entire 27-nation bloc. “Passporting” means a crypto firm authorised in one EU country can, once licensed, operate in other EU states without separate authorisation. AMF President Marie-Anne Barbat-Lay-ani said regulators are seeing “regulatory shopping” i.e. companies choosing jurisdictions inside the EU with looser licensing or oversight to get easier access.
France (alongside Italy, Austria) is proposing that oversight of major crypto companies be shifted from individual national regulators to the EU-wide regulator ESMA (European Securities and Markets Authority). They argue that national enforcement is inconsistent, especially with respect to investor protection, cybersecurity, and supervision of companies based outside the EU.
Source: Reuters+1
What might change / what’s at stake:
- France is explicitly warning that it may block passported licenses coming from other member states; i.e., even if a firm is legally licensed under MiCA in, for example, Malta or Luxembourg, France may refuse to allow them to operate within France if it believes the oversight is too weak.
- The regulators are asking for modifications or “revisions” to MiCA rules: more stringent requirements for firms operating outside the EU; improved cybersecurity obligations; better clarity for new token offerings; stricter supervision of how licences are granted in some jurisdictions.
- If France moves to refuse passporting, this could erode one of the foundational features of MiCA (which aims for a harmonised market). It could lead to fragmentation different countries may begin insisting on stricter local rules, or refuse to recognise each other’s licences. This can affect firms’ strategies, licensing costs, legal risk, and possibly the flow of capital.
Why it matters:
- For investors & companies: If oversight becomes more centralized (via ESMA), firms may face higher compliance costs, but perhaps more legal certainty in the long run across the EU.
- For market stability and consumer protection: The move is intended to reduce risk of “weak link” jurisdictions being abused, which could expose investors or allow entities with lax supervision to cause problems (fraud, failure, etc.).
- For the EU regulatory architecture: MiCA is new (came into force in parts this year), and this dispute is one of the first big tests of how its mechanisms will work in practice. How MiCA deals with cross-border licensing, state vs. EU authority, and supervisory consistency will set precedents.
Concerns / challenges:
- Legal complexity: Refusing to accept passported licences may conflict with aspects of the EU single market laws and treaties; it could lead to litigation. France acknowledged this in referring to such refusal as something that could be “complex legally” and called it an “atomic weapon” metaphor.
- Opposition from some member states: Not all EU countries may favour giving ESMA more powers, especially if they enjoy attracting crypto firms via more favorable regulatory or licensing environments.
- For firms: uncertainty in what jurisdictions will be acceptable; where to locate headquarters; deciding licensing strategy; risk of being blocked in large EU markets even though licensed elsewhere.
What to watch next:
- Whether EU lawmakers or MiCA implementation bodies respond with amendments to MiCA, or clarifications about oversight / enforcement.
- Whether France (or Italy, Austria) follow up with concrete actions refusing to recognize licences, or setting formal criteria for rejecting passported licences.
- How other EU regulators respond: whether they side with France’s view or resist changes.
- How crypto firms adapt: possibly seeking licensing in jurisdictions with high standards, or pre-emptively increasing compliance.
2. Bitcoin Core 29.1 Cuts Default Minimum Relay Fee by ~90% Transactions Become Much Cheaper
A recent update to Bitcoin Core (version 29.1) has changed a default fee parameter: the default minimum relay fee (and associated incremental relay fee) has been lowered from 1 satoshi per virtual byte (sat/vB) to 0.1 sat/vB a 90 % reduction. This means that nodes running Bitcoin Core will now relay (i.e. accept and propagate) transactions with lower fees than before (provided those fees are above the new threshold).
This parameter (minrelaytxfee) is part of the policy settings for full nodes: it controls the lowest fee rate a transaction must have to be relayed across the peer-to-peer network. If a transaction’s fee rate is below that, many nodes will ignore it (i.e. won’t help move it along), so users need to pay at least that much to ensure propagation.
Source: Bitcoin Core+2Cointelegraph+2
Why this change now:
- Bitcoin’s exchange rate (price USD/BTC) has changed a lot in the last decade, meaning what was once a “reasonable” relay fee in terms of fiat cost may now be overly high, especially during low network congestion times. The developers and community recognized that many transactions with very low fee rates are already being included by miners, but some nodes were ignoring them, which leads to inefficiencies and possible delays.
- Also, as block relay (propagation) and mempool behavior have become more important for overall network efficiency, the newer fee threshold helps reduce the wasted propagation delays / rejections of low-fee transactions. Nodes ignoring sub-threshold transactions cause those transactions to be “invisible” in parts of the network until they get mined, which can add latency or hinder efficient block propagation.
Source : Cointelegraph+1
Thanks for stopping by and taking the time to read. Keep reading, stay curious, and stay updated with more insights coming your way.
