#
On-chain activity oversight in France remains split between a settled custodial perimeter and an acknowledged gap for non-custodial activity. ESMA's Q&A 2067 addresses the treatment of staking-as-a-service offered by authorised CASPs as a custody-adjacent obligation, though this guidance page carries no independent publication date and the module remains thin on evidence. More significantly, ESMA and EBA's own Article 142 MiCA Joint Report finds that self-custodial wallets and DeFi lending/staking protocols are not generally subject to MiCA authorisation or AML/CFT requirements absent an identifiable intermediary -- a negative finding that leaves a genuine, EU-wide regulatory gap for non-custodial DeFi rather than a France-specific omission. Separately, the Banque de France, French Treasury and AMF have formed a joint strategic group dedicated to DLT and tokenisation innovation; this is a non-normative institutional development and does not yet constitute binding tokenisation-specific rules.
The more consequential finding this cycle comes directly from ESMA and EBA's own joint Article 142 MiCA report: self-custodial wallets and DeFi lending or staking protocols are not generally subject to MiCA authorisation or AML/CFT requirements where no identifiable intermediary exists. This is a negative finding in the sense that it documents an absence of binding regulation rather than a rule, but it is significant precisely because it comes from the regulators' own analysis rather than external commentary, and it applies across the EU rather than being a France-specific gap. Readers should not interpret this as evidence of imminent French unilateral action; it describes the current EU-wide perimeter as the regulators themselves understand it.
Separately, a joint strategic group bringing together the Banque de France, the French Treasury and the AMF has been formed to focus on distributed ledger technology and tokenisation innovation. This is a non-normative institutional development -- it establishes a forum for coordination, not a binding rule -- and should be read as a signal of official attention to the space rather than a regulatory commitment.
Outlook
The central open question for this module is whether the EU-level regulatory gap around non-custodial DeFi and self-hosted wallets narrows through a future legislative vehicle, or whether the current Article 142 joint-report position (no binding perimeter absent an identifiable intermediary) persists as the settled EU stance for the foreseeable future. The newly formed Banque de France/Treasury/AMF DLT strategic group is worth tracking for any binding output, though none has emerged as of this cycle.
no periodic updates on record for this sub-brief
Sources and findings (3)
- T1 · ESMAESMA — treatment of staking-as-a-service offered by authorised CASPs within MiCA custody-adjacent obligations via an open Q&A (2067)retrieved M3bindingin force
- T1 · ESMA/EBAESMA/EBA (Article 142 MiCA Joint Report) — self-custodial wallets and DeFi lending/staking protocols are not generally subject to MiCA authorisation or AML/CFT requirements absent an identifiable intermediary, leaving a regulatory gap for non-custodial DeFiretrieved M3non-binding
- T1 · Bank for International Settlements (republishing Banque de France speech)Banque de France / French Treasury / AMF — a joint strategic group dedicated to DLT and tokenisation innovation, without yet constituting binding tokenisation-specific rulesretrieved M2non-binding