Over 50,000 Europeans have urged the European Commission to relax restrictions on stablecoin rewards as part of its review of the Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) framework. The campaign, led by advocacy group Stand With Crypto EU, coincided with the closure of the Commission’s consultation period. Participants argued that current rules prohibiting issuers and service providers from paying interest or offering incentives like cashback place regulated stablecoins at a disadvantage compared to traditional bank deposits and e-money products.
Stand With Crypto EU reported that more than 126,000 individuals signed a separate petition supporting a more permissive approach. The group highlighted that their campaign generated over six times the responses submitted to the European Central Bank’s digital euro consultation. General Manager Harry Pearce Gould stated that allowing rewards could boost adoption of euro-denominated stablecoins, helping them compete with dollar-based alternatives and strengthening the euro’s global standing. This push contrasts with recent proposals from the European System of Central Banks, which recommended extending the interest ban to lending and staking arrangements to mitigate financial stability risks.
The surge in public opposition to MiCA’s reward prohibitions highlights a growing tension between consumer demand for yield-bearing crypto instruments and regulatory efforts to preserve banking stability. While the European Commission faces pressure to align stablecoin regulations with market expectations, the sheer volume of responses—exceeding those for the digital euro consultation—signals that this is no longer a niche industry concern but a broader public policy issue. The argument that banning rewards stifles euro-denominated stablecoin adoption underscores the strategic importance of payment sovereignty in an increasingly dollar-dominated crypto landscape.
However, the regulatory path forward remains complicated by institutional resistance. The European System of Central Banks’ proposal to expand the prohibition to cover lending and staking suggests that authorities are prioritizing systemic risk mitigation over competitive parity. If the Commission yields to public pressure without addressing these structural concerns, it may face criticism for undermining the prudential safeguards intended to prevent deposit flight from traditional banks. The outcome will likely depend on whether policymakers can distinguish between benign loyalty incentives and yield mechanisms that effectively replicate unregulated banking activities.
