UK FCA’s New Cryptoasset Regulation Proposals – Key Points and Comparison with MiCA

On 16 December 2025, the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) published three major consultation papers outlining a new regulatory regime for cryptoassets. This followed the UK Treasury’s draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Cryptoassets) Regulations 2025, which significantly expand the FCA’s supervisory remit over crypto-related activities.

The proposals aim to strengthen market integrity, enhance consumer protection and provide regulatory certainty for crypto firms operating in the UK. While broadly aligned with the EU’s Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA), the UK framework reflects a more traditional financial services approach, with stricter prudential standards and closer alignment with existing conduct and market abuse regimes.

The scope of the UK crypto regulations: broader than MiCA?

The UK plans to bring most core crypto activities into scope, including trading platforms, custody, dealing, brokerage, lending and staking. The regime also introduces rules for token issuance, exchange listings, and a dedicated framework for crypto-market abuse. Importantly, the FCA signals its intention to regulate crypto lending and certain DeFi arrangements where a responsible intermediary can be identified, applying the principle of “same risk, same regulatory outcome”.

MiCA similarly establishes an authorisation regime for crypto-asset service providers and issuers, while excluding crypto-assets that qualify as traditional financial instruments. However, MiCA deliberately excludes crypto lending, staking, DeFi, and NFTs from its initial scope. In this respect, the UK proposals are broader from the outset, reflecting a policy choice to subject higher-risk activities to regulatory oversight earlier.

Capital requirements: FCA sets the bar higher than MiCA

Under the FCA’s proposals, crypto firms would be subject to activity-based minimum capital requirements ranging from GBP 75,000 to GBP 750,000, supplemented by additional risk-based capital buffers. This mirrors prudential concepts familiar from investment firms and aims to ensure operational resilience.

MiCA also imposes own-funds requirements on crypto-asset service providers, but at lower thresholds (EUR 50,000–150,000, depending on the service). While both regimes pursue financial soundness, the UK model is more demanding and more closely aligned with traditional financial-services supervision.

Customer protection and crypto promotion: FCA restrictions versus MiCA general rules

The FCA proposes detailed conduct-of-business obligations, including conflict-of-interest management, fair access to trading venues and safeguards against abusive trading. Firms that intermediate client orders are expected to pursue best execution.

A notable feature of the UK regime is its approach to retail protection and financial promotions. Cryptoassets should not be actively promoted to UK retail clients unless admitted to trading on a regulated UK platform and supported by appropriate disclosures. The UK financial promotions regime also applies extraterritorially, capturing communications directed at UK customers regardless of the firm’s location.

MiCA similarly requires crypto firms to act honestly, fairly and professionally, safeguard client assets and provide clear disclosures, but relies more heavily on high-level principles and national enforcement across Member States.

Market abuse: FCA with full regime, MiCA with simplification

The FCA intends to introduce a dedicated Market Abuse Regime for Cryptoassets (MARC) to prohibit insider dealing, unlawful disclosure of inside information, and market manipulation. Trading venues would be required to conduct token due diligence, monitor trading activity, and, in some cases, maintain insider lists and enhanced surveillance arrangements.

MiCA also bans insider trading and manipulation but adopts a lighter compliance model, omitting certain obligations known from traditional market-abuse frameworks to avoid overburdening early-stage crypto firms.

Under the UK proposals, cryptoassets offered to the public or admitted to trading would require a Qualifying Cryptoasset Disclosure Document (QCDD), resembling a prospectus-style disclosure with legal liability and potential withdrawal rights for investors prior to admission.

MiCA relies on a standardised crypto-asset white paper filed with regulators but not formally approved. While issuers remain liable for misleading information, MiCA does not provide for pre-listing withdrawal rights, resulting in a lighter disclosure regime than the UK proposal.

FCA and MiCA- similar goals, different regulatory paths

Both the UK and the EU seek to integrate cryptoassets into mainstream financial regulation, with a strong focus on consumer protection, market integrity and transparency. The FCA’s proposals are broadly aligned with MiCA but go further in key areas, including capital requirements, disclosure standards and market-abuse controls.

For firms already familiar with MiCA, the UK regime will feel conceptually aligned but operationally more demanding. By regulating crypto lending and certain DeFi models from the outset and applying traditional financial-market disciplines to crypto activities, the UK aims to position itself as a trusted, well-regulated crypto hub.

Are you planning to launch a crypto business in the UK, or are you already operating under MiCA?

Our law firm helps entities in the crypto-asset sector to meet FCA and MiCA requirements- from regulatory planning and operational setup to preparing documentation and liaising with regulators. We assist in understanding the differences between regimes, pinpointing risks, and developing a model compliant with UK and EU regulations. Contact us to operate confidently within the UK and EU markets.