#
Staking, DeFi lending, and mining/node operation remain outside binding MiCA licensing scope in the Netherlands, acknowledged as a gap by AFM leadership and EU supervisors pending a possible 'MiCA 2' framework. The European Commission is separately consulting on expanding MiCA to real-world-asset tokenisation, a proposed-stage development only.
The one forward-looking development in this module is at the European Commission level rather than the Dutch national level: the Commission is consulting stakeholders on potentially expanding MiCA to cover tokenisation of real-world assets, a prospective review that — if it proceeds — would eventually affect the scope of Dutch supervisory authority over on-chain tokenisation activity, though this remains at the proposed/consultation stage with no confirmed timeline.
Outlook
This module is the clearest structural gap in the Dutch/EU crypto framework at present: staking, DeFi lending and mining activity are acknowledged by supervisors themselves as under-addressed, but no binding licensing extension has yet been proposed to close that gap. The Commission's tokenisation consultation is worth tracking as a potential vector for eventual scope expansion, but its current proposed-stage status means no near-term change to the binding perimeter should be assumed.
On-Chain Activity Regime
The defining development in the Netherlands' on-chain activity regime this period is the joint AFM/DNB exploratory report, published 12 October 2026, finding that Dutch law currently provides no basis for securities issued, held and transferred exclusively in native tokenised form. The gap is located specifically in Dutch property and securities law, the Burgerlijk Wetboek and the Wet giraal effectenverkeer (Wge), neither of which currently recognises a token itself as the sole legal basis of title and transfer for a security. AFM and DNB characterised this explicitly as a legal-infrastructure gap rather than a MiCA-level prohibition: it is a question of whether Dutch private law can give full legal effect to on-chain securities, not a restriction on the crypto-asset services that may be offered under MiCA.
The regulators recommended a joint follow-up process involving government and market participants to address the gap, reflecting the structural, cross-sector nature of the finding, which is as much a capital-markets infrastructure matter as a digital-asset supervisory one. In the absence of legislative clarification, market participants seeking to achieve native on-chain issuance of securities in the Netherlands must continue to rely on hybrid or dual-registration structures that layer a token representation over a conventional legal title recognised under existing law.
This finding is assessed at Confirmed confidence, reflecting its basis in a joint primary publication by both the Netherlands' conduct regulator and its prudential regulator acting together. No other on-chain activity development specific to the Netherlands was identified this period.
Outlook
The AFM/DNB recommendation for a joint follow-up process has no confirmed timetable. Whether the Dutch government pursues a legislative amendment to the Burgerlijk Wetboek and Wet giraal effectenverkeer to give on-chain securities a clear legal basis, or market participants continue relying on dual-registration structures indefinitely, is the central open question for the on-chain activity regime in the Netherlands going forward.
Sources and findings (4)
- T1 · EBAStaking-as-a-service by non-CASP entities — binding MiCA licensing scope in the Netherlands as of 2026, despite EBA/ESMA joint findings on crypto lending, borrowing and staking risksretrieved M3non-binding
- T4 · CoinDeskAFM Chair — MiCA does not address crypto-lending risks, indicating a Dutch/EU regulatory gap for DeFi lending pending a possible 'MiCA 2' frameworkretrieved M3non-binding
- T1 · ESMACrypto-asset mining and node operation — MiCA's CASP authorisation requirements; no dedicated Dutch licensing or registration regime targets mining or node operation as of 2026retrieved M2non-binding
- T4 · The BlockEuropean Commission — potentially expanding MiCA to cover tokenization of real-world assets, a prospective review that would affect future Dutch supervisory scoperetrieved M2non-bindingproposed