Blockchain & Crypto-Assets 2026 Comparisons

Over the past 12 months, Italian market practice has increasingly consolidated around the European Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCAR) as the primary compliance benchmark for conducting crypto-asset activities in Italy. This development has occurred even as certain domestic implementing measures continue to mature. The overall trajectory is clear: operators active in Italy are expected to align their organisational, operational and governance frameworks with MiCAR standards in anticipation of full supervisory convergence.

At the national level, the legislative framework identifies Consob and the Banca d’Italia as the competent authorities and delineates their respective areas of responsibility. Consob exercises oversight over conduct of business, transparency and investor protection, while the Banca d’Italia is entrusted with prudential supervision, including governance, organisational requirements and risk management. This allocation of competences reflects a deliberate extension of traditional financial regulatory principles into the crypto-asset domain.

Prior to MiCAR, Italy had established a registration regime for virtual asset service providers through the OAM register. However, this regime was primarily administrative and is now being superseded by the more robust MiCAR framework.

As a result, market participants have progressively restructured their internal compliance systems with a view to becoming “authorisation-ready”. This has entailed the development or refinement of policies relating to outsourcing, ICT governance, operational resilience, product governance, marketing controls and complaints handling. The shift is not merely procedural but reflects a broader change in regulatory posture: operators are preparing for continuous supervision rather than one-off registration.

This transformation has also influenced the approach of banks and large financial institutions. Engagement with crypto-assets is increasingly framed within structured authorisation pathways rather than exploratory or experimental initiatives. Partnerships and group-level strategies are designed to operate within a foreseeable regulatory perimeter, thereby reducing legal and reputational uncertainty.

In parallel with MiCAR, Italy has implemented a framework for digital financial instruments based on DLT, in line with the EU DLT Pilot Regime (Regulation (EU) 2022/858). This framework introduces the concept of “digital financial instruments” and provides for their issuance, transfer and registration through a “register for digital circulation”.

A central feature of this regime is the official list of “responsabili del registro” – entities authorised to operate DLT-based registers. Inclusion requires a formal procedure and entails ongoing obligations regarding operational reliability, transparency and accountability.

This dual regulatory track, comprising MiCAR for crypto-assets and the DLT framework for financial instruments, has contributed to a gradual reorientation of market initiatives toward tokenised securities and structured capital markets applications. These use cases benefit from an established legal infrastructure, including disclosure obligations, custody arrangements and market abuse rules, which can be adapted to distributed ledger environments. The regulatory clarity associated with financial instruments has made this segment particularly attractive for institutional actors.

In practical terms, this has encouraged both institutional and market-led initiatives. On the one hand, financial institutions have conducted pilot projects aimed at improving efficiency and auditability in issuance processes and life cycle management, including corporate actions, transfer restrictions and collateral enforcement. On the other hand, crypto-native operators have increasingly sought to align their products with securities-like frameworks, with a view to accessing regulated distribution channels and secondary markets.

A further area of development concerns blockchain-based models linked to the energy sector. In Italy, certain projects are exploring the tokenisation of rights associated with access to renewable energy production capacity. These structures are typically designed to grant users contractual rights to benefit from the output of renewable energy installations, for example through economic returns or reductions in energy costs. While still subject to careful regulatory classification, these initiatives reflect a broader trend toward the application of distributed ledger technology to real-economy assets and infrastructure.

Italy demonstrates significant technical expertise in DeFi. Italian teams are active in smart contract development, security auditing and protocol design. From a regulatory perspective, these activities are often channelled into hybrid models incorporating elements capable of interfacing with the regulated perimeter.

Looking ahead, the most significant near-term development is likely to be the transition from preparatory compliance efforts to the granting of the first MiCAR authorisations and the commencement of fully supervised operations. At the same time, the DLT-based financial instruments framework is expected to mature, providing further opportunities for regulated tokenisation initiatives.

In this context, two trends are likely to emerge. First, there will be increased participation by traditional financial institutions, either as applicants for authorisation or as partners in regulated projects, driven by greater regulatory certainty. Second, competitive pressures are likely to intensify, leading to consolidation among smaller operators for whom the costs of compliance, capital requirements and governance standards may prove burdensome.

A key legal issue underpinning these developments is the classification of tokenised assets. The distinction between crypto-assets falling within the scope of MiCAR and financial instruments subject to existing capital markets legislation is of fundamental importance. The same technological infrastructure may support either classification, depending on the rights attached to the token and the manner of its distribution. Consequently, considerable attention is being devoted to the legal structuring of products, with classification analysis becoming a central element of business strategy.

In the area of intellectual property, Italian practice is evolving without consolidated case law on blockchain disputes. For NFTs, there is growing recognition that the token does not confer ownership of underlying IP. Market practice has shifted toward structured contractual approaches, emphasising clear licensing terms and transparent communication to users.

In sum, the Italian approach to crypto-assets and distributed ledger technology is characterised by a progressive integration into the existing financial regulatory framework. The emphasis on governance, investor protection and supervisory clarity suggests that future market development will favour operators capable of demonstrating robust compliance structures and operational resilience within a clearly defined legal perimeter.

Italy has introduced a structured regulatory sandbox to allow fintech operators to test innovative solutions within a controlled environment, while ensuring appropriate levels of investor and consumer protection. The sandbox applies across the banking, financial and insurance sectors and involves co-ordinated supervision by Consob, the Banca d’Italia and IVASS. Its legal framework is defined, inter alia, by Ministerial Decree No 100 of 30 April 2021, which sets out admission criteria, operational limits and supervisory powers.

From a practical standpoint, the sandbox is particularly relevant where innovation intersects with regulated activities or does not fit neatly within existing regulatory frameworks. This includes cases involving reserved services, such as investment or payment services, lending and insurance distribution, as well as new operational models, including DLT-based infrastructures, algorithmic governance systems and alternative custody solutions.

The sandbox operates on a temporary and conditional basis. Admission is granted following a case-by-case assessment, and participants are subject to specific safeguards and reporting obligations. The objective is to allow controlled experimentation while enabling authorities to observe and better understand emerging technologies and business models.

This framework is complemented by Italy’s regime on digital financial instruments based on distributed ledger technology, adopted in connection with the EU DLT Pilot Regime. Unlike the sandbox, the DLT framework provides a stable legal basis for certain activities, including the issuance and transfer of financial instruments through distributed ledger-based registers and the operation of DLT trading and settlement systems. Notably, the regime has already moved beyond a purely theoretical stage: four entities have been authorised as “responsabili del registro”, including a major institutional player, Cassa Depositi e Prestiti, which signals growing involvement of established financial actors in DLT-based market infrastructure.

In practice, innovators must determine whether to pursue a sandbox-based approach or to enter directly into a formal authorisation or registration regime. The sandbox is generally suitable for projects at an experimental stage or where legal classification remains uncertain. Conversely, where the business model can be clearly framed within an existing regulatory category, operators may opt for direct authorisation, for example under MiCAR, or registration under the DLT framework.

This dual approach reflects the Italian regulatory strategy of combining controlled experimentation with structured pathways to full compliance, allowing innovation to develop within a defined and supervised legal perimeter.

Italy’s regulatory attitude toward blockchain can be characterised as cautious, structured and anchored in investor and market protection. Public authorities do not approach blockchain as a sector to be either promoted unconditionally or restrained outright. Rather, innovation is channelled within existing legal principles, with an emphasis on governance, transparency and accountability. The implementation of MiCAR reflects this posture: technological novelty does not justify a relaxation of standards, but instead requires clearer allocation of responsibilities and more robust internal controls. As a result, business models that incorporate “compliance by design” are increasingly favoured, particularly where they can demonstrate reliability in areas such as marketing practices, conflict management, operational resilience and complaint handling.

At the same time, Italy does not confine blockchain regulation to crypto-assets alone. Distributed ledger technology is expressly recognised as a potential market infrastructure tool, even where the underlying asset does not fall within the MiCAR perimeter. The legislative framework on digital financial instruments provides a clear illustration. It allows for the issuance and circulation of financial instruments through book entries on a distributed ledger-based “register for digital circulation”, to which specific legal effects are attached. These include rules on the opposability of entries, the exercise of voting rights, the attribution of payment entitlements and the creation of security interests. In this context, blockchain is regulated in functional terms, focusing on operational roles and responsibilities. The framework requires clarity as to who operates the register, the minimum technical and organisational standards it must satisfy, the procedures for handling errors or loss of access, and the allocation of liability among participants.

Outside the financial instruments perimeter, blockchain may also be deployed through private legal arrangements. A notable example in the Italian context is the “contratto di rete”, which allows networks of enterprises to define governance structures, data-sharing rules and operational responsibilities contractually. In such cases, the distributed ledger serves as a shared record-keeping mechanism, while legal effectiveness depends on the alignment between the technological layer and the contractual framework, as well as compliance with any applicable sector-specific regulation.

With respect to data protection, blockchain-based applications are subject to the general framework established by the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), as implemented in Italy through the Privacy Code (Legislative Decree No 196/2003, as amended). The GDPR adopts a technology-neutral approach, meaning that blockchain is neither inherently compliant nor inherently incompatible with data protection rules. Compliance depends on system design and governance choices, including data minimisation, identification of controllers and processors, lawful bases for processing, and security measures.

The Italian Data Protection Authority (Garante per la protezione dei dati personali) aligns its approach with European guidance, including positions developed at the level of the European Data Protection Board and the European Data Protection Supervisor. In practice, a number of compliance principles have emerged. Market participants are generally expected to avoid recording personal data directly on immutable ledgers, to rely on off-chain storage solutions with on-chain references such as hashes, and to treat pseudonymisation as a risk-mitigation technique rather than a full exemption from GDPR applicability. Particular attention is required in defining mechanisms to address data subject rights, including requests for erasure or rectification.

At a high level, the so-called right to be forgotten is not considered incompatible with blockchain technology, but it requires careful architectural planning. A commonly adopted approach involves separating the immutable ledger layer from the storage of personal data, so that the ledger contains only indirect references while personal data remains subject to modification or deletion off-chain. This layered model allows the immutability of the ledger to be preserved without undermining compliance with data protection obligations.

Finally, with regard to pseudonymisation, Italian practice reflects the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union, according to which data remains “personal” where individuals can be identified through reasonably available means. Consequently, blockchain identifiers and addresses are often treated as personal data if they can be linked, directly or indirectly, to a natural person. This reinforces a prudent compliance approach, under which blockchain solutions must be designed with the assumption that data protection rules will apply in full whenever identifiability cannot be definitively excluded.

Under Italian law, so-called smart contracts can be accommodated within the existing framework of contract law, provided that the general requirements for contractual validity are satisfied. These include the agreement of the parties, a lawful cause (causa), an object that is sufficiently determined or determinable, and compliance with any applicable formal requirements. The use of automated execution through code does not displace these elements. Rather, it presupposes them. The legal analysis therefore remains centred on the existence of a valid agreement, the identification of the parties, and the determination of the contractual content.

From this perspective, a smart contract is more accurately understood not as a distinct legal category, but as a technological modality for the performance and execution of contractual obligations. The fact that performance is automated does not eliminate the need to establish, through conventional legal means, that a contract has been concluded and to interpret its terms. In case of dispute, courts will continue to assess the parties’ common intention, and the code will be considered as one element – albeit a technically relevant one – within the broader evidentiary framework.

Italian legislation has nonetheless introduced statutory definitions that help situate these concepts within the legal system. Article 8-ter of Decree-Law No 135 of 2018, as converted into Law No 12 of 2019, defines “distributed ledger technologies” as shared, distributed, replicable registers, accessible simultaneously, architecturally decentralised on a cryptographic basis and capable of recording, validating, updating and storing data in a manner that is verifiable and resistant to alteration. The same provision defines “smart contracts” as computer programs operating on such technologies, whose execution automatically binds two or more parties based on predefined effects.

These definitions serve an important classificatory function, providing a point of reference for market participants and courts. However, they do not create a new category of contract or introduce a self-standing legal regime. The traditional principles of Italian contract law continue to apply in full. As a consequence, operators must ensure that the use of a smart contract is embedded within a broader contractual framework that governs interpretation, allocation of risk, mechanisms for modification or suspension of performance, and dispute resolution.

In addition, where the underlying transaction is subject to mandatory form requirements, the deployment of a smart contract does not derogate from such requirements. Transactions that must be executed by way of public deed or other formal instruments remain subject to those rules irrespective of any automated execution layer. In practice, this has led to the widespread adoption of “dual-layer” structures, in which a written agreement defines the legal relationship between the parties, while the smart contract code is used as a tool to implement and automate performance in accordance with the agreed terms.

The Italian Blockchain Association presents itself as a multidisciplinary and sector-wide organisation whose primary function is to support the orderly and responsible development of blockchain technologies within the Italian legal and economic system. Its role is best characterised as that of an “ecosystem infrastructure”, in that it seeks to connect a broad range of stakeholders – including legal professionals, technology developers, academic institutions, entrepreneurs and established businesses – around shared methodological and governance principles, rather than advancing a specific commercial agenda or technological orthodoxy.

A defining feature of the Association’s positioning is its non-partisan and inclusive approach. It does not adhere to a single ideological vision of blockchain development, but instead maintains an open framework capable of accommodating different technological architectures and governance models, whether centralised, decentralised or hybrid. This neutrality enhances its credibility as an interlocutor in a field often characterised by fragmentation and competing narratives.

From a practical standpoint, one of the Association’s most relevant functions is to act as a structured counterpart to public institutions and supervisory authorities. In a regulatory environment where technological complexity can hinder effective dialogue, the Association contributes by translating technical developments into legally and policy-relevant terms. At the same time, it provides a channel through which industry participants can articulate co-ordinated positions, thereby facilitating more coherent and informed engagement with legislative and regulatory processes.

Another important dimension of its activity lies in the promotion of common standards and best practices. This function is particularly significant in a context where the applicable legal framework is often principles-based and where compliance outcomes depend heavily on technological design choices. The Association therefore encourages the adoption of approaches centred on quality and security by design, with a view to ensuring that technological solutions are developed in a manner consistent with regulatory expectations.

Under Italian law, crypto-assets are not expressly classified as “property” in the traditional civil law sense. There is no explicit recognition of crypto-assets as “beni” under the Italian Civil Code, nor a dedicated regime of real rights comparable to that applicable to tangible assets. Nonetheless, the legal system accommodates them through a functional approach that combines contractual principles, factual control and regulatory safeguards.

In practice, the holder of the private key is generally regarded as the subject capable of exercising control over the crypto-asset. However, legal protection of such position is not based on classical property remedies, but rather on a combination of contractual rights (for example, vis-à-vis custodial providers), tort law and, where relevant, criminal law. As a result, ownership claims are enforced differently from those relating to tangible property: the focus is less on possession as a legal concept and more on demonstrable control and the underlying contractual framework.

The transfer of crypto-assets is likewise not governed by a specific statutory rule. It is generally understood to occur through the combination of a technical transaction recorded on a distributed ledger and the parties’ intention to transfer the asset. Where intermediaries are involved, transfers may be reflected through internal account entries, with the user holding a contractual claim against the provider rather than direct on-chain control.

The use of crypto-assets as collateral remains an evolving area. Italian law does not provide a comprehensive regime specifically tailored to security interests over crypto-assets. In practice, collateral arrangements are typically structured through contractual mechanisms that rely on control, such as the transfer or escrow of private keys or the use of custodial accounts. Where the relevant tokens qualify as financial instruments, the European regime on financial collateral may apply, offering greater legal certainty. Outside that perimeter, issues of enforceability and third-party effectiveness require careful structuring.

An area where practice has developed more clearly concerns corporate law. In Italy, contributions in kind (conferimenti in natura) are permitted in the context of share capital increases, provided that the contributed asset is capable of economic valuation. On this basis, crypto-assets are increasingly used in practice as contributions in kind, subject to the applicable safeguards, including valuation requirements (typically through an expert report under Article 2343 of the Italian Civil Code for joint stock companies). This confirms that, while not formally classified as traditional property, crypto-assets are recognised as assets with economic value that can be integrated into established legal structures.

Overall, the Italian approach remains pragmatic. Crypto-assets are not yet fully embedded within the system of property law, but their use, transfer and economic exploitation are addressed through existing legal tools, with increasing support from sector-specific regulation.

Prior to the entry into force of MiCAR, access to banking services represented a significant barrier for crypto-asset firms operating in Italy. Italian banks adopted a distinctly cautious approach towards crypto operators, largely driven by the absence of a comprehensive and coherent regulatory framework. This regulatory vacuum created uncertainty around customer qualification, AML/CFT risk classification, and reputational exposure, prompting many credit institutions to decline or restrict relationships with crypto businesses. The introduction of MiCAR has materially improved this landscape. The establishment of a harmonised EU licensing regime, combined with clear prudential and conduct requirements, has provided banks with the regulatory certainty necessary to reassess their risk appetite. While some residual caution persists – particularly with respect to correspondent banking and fiat on/off-ramp services – the trend is shifting. Nevertheless, crypto firms must still demonstrate robust compliance frameworks to secure and maintain banking relationships.

In Italy, ESG and sustainable finance requirements applicable to crypto-assets stem directly from MiCAR, which introduces sustainability considerations primarily through disclosure and conduct-of-business obligations rather than through substantive environmental restrictions.

A first level of ESG integration concerns crypto-asset white papers. Under MiCAR, issuers must include information on the principal adverse environmental and climate impacts of the crypto-asset, with particular reference to the consensus mechanism used. This ensures that investors are informed of the energy consumption and broader environmental footprint associated with the underlying technology.

A second and more operational level concerns crypto-asset service providers (CASPs). Article 66 MiCAR, which governs the general duty to act honestly, fairly and professionally in the best interests of clients, frames ESG disclosure within the broader obligation to provide information that is fair, clear and not misleading. Sustainability-related information is therefore not ancillary, but part of the overall transparency duty owed to clients.

More specifically, Article 66(5) requires CASPs to make publicly available, in a prominent place on their website, information on the principal adverse impacts on the climate and other environment-related impacts of the consensus mechanisms of the crypto-assets in respect of which they provide services. This information is typically derived from the relevant white papers and must be accessible to clients in a clear and usable form.

In addition, CASPs must warn clients of the risks associated with crypto-assets and provide access (including via hyperlinks) to the relevant white papers when offering services such as trading, exchange, advice or portfolio management. In this way, ESG disclosures are embedded within the broader investor protection framework.

Italy has introduced a specific tax regime for crypto-assets under the 2023 Budget Law (Law No 197/2022), subsequently amended by the 2025 Budget Law (Law No 207/2024) and further refined by the 2026 Budget Law (Law No 199/2025). Capital gains from crypto-asset transactions are subject to a substitute tax of 26%, increased to 33% as from 2026, provided that the total gains exceed the annual threshold of EUR2,000. Taxpayers were offered a voluntary disclosure window (“regolarizzazione”), enabling retrospective declaration of previously undisclosed holdings, subject to a 14% substitute tax on deemed gains. Significant interpretive uncertainties remain: the characterisation of staking and DeFi yields – whether ordinary income or capital gains – is unsettled. NFTs and utility tokens also pose classification challenges. The lack of binding guidance from the Revenue Agency creates operational difficulties for both taxpayers and advisors, while cross-border holding structures may trigger complex CFC and transfer pricing considerations.

Initially, Italian law did not provide for a specific insolvency or resolution regime tailored to blockchain-based businesses or crypto-asset operators. Entities operating in this space were therefore subject to the ordinary rules of corporate insolvency, without differentiation based on the technological nature of their activities.

This position is now evolving as a result of the entry into force of MiCAR, which introduces a structured regulatory framework for CASPs and certain categories of issuers. While MiCAR itself does not establish a fully-fledged, standalone resolution regime comparable to that applicable to banks, it brings crypto-asset firms within a regulated perimeter characterised by prudential and organisational requirements, which are relevant also in a distress or insolvency scenario.

In particular, MiCAR imposes obligations on CASPs relating to safeguarding of client assets, governance and operational resilience, which are designed to mitigate insolvency risk and facilitate an orderly management of client positions in case of failure. This represents a shift from a purely unregulated environment to one where firms are subject to ex ante controls and ongoing supervision.

At the national level, the Italian implementing legislation adapting the legal system to MiCAR introduces specific provisions that refer back to existing regimes applicable to regulated financial intermediaries, including banks and investment firms. These references are particularly relevant for aspects such as supervisory powers, administrative measures and, indirectly, crisis management tools. The approach is therefore one of regulatory integration, rather than the creation of an entirely new insolvency framework.

The main trade association in the Italian crypto-asset industry is AssoCASP (Associazione Crypto-asset Service Providers), established in 2024. AssoCASP serves as the representative body for CASPs operating or seeking authorisation in Italy, and acts as a unified voice for the industry in regulatory consultations and policy discussions. AssoCASP facilitates dialogue between operators and supervisory authorities (Consob, Banca d’Italia, OAM), promotes best practices in compliance and governance and offers members a platform for sharing regulatory intelligence. The association’s contribution to shaping a sustainable regulatory environment positions it as a key interlocutor for both regulators and market participants.

No response has been provided in this jurisdiction.

Under MiCAR, fiat-backed stablecoins fall predominantly within the category of EMTs, defined as crypto-assets that purport to maintain a stable value by referencing a single official currency, such as the euro. EMTs are conceptually aligned with electronic money, and their regulatory treatment reflects this proximity.

However, rather than being simply absorbed into the pre-existing payments framework, EMTs are subject to a hybrid regime. On the one hand, MiCAR builds on the principles of the Electronic Money Directive (EMD2), particularly with respect to redemption rights, safeguarding of funds and issuer authorisation. On the other hand, it introduces additional, crypto-specific requirements, thereby creating a distinct regulatory layer tailored to blockchain-based instruments.

Only authorised credit institutions or electronic money institutions may issue EMTs. Issuers must ensure that holders have a right of redemption at par value, at any time, and must implement robust safeguarding arrangements for the assets backing the tokens.

In addition, EMT issuers are subject to obligations that go beyond traditional e-money regulation, including:

• the preparation and publication of a crypto-asset white paper (subject to notification, not approval);
• enhanced transparency and disclosure requirements, including information on the functioning of the token and associated risks;
• specific governance and organisational requirements; and
• ongoing supervision by competent authorities, including both conduct and prudential aspects.

While EMTs are clearly positioned within the broader payments ecosystem, the MiCAR regime is more comprehensive and stringent in certain respects than the traditional e-money framework. In particular, the introduction of detailed disclosure obligations and the integration of market conduct rules reflect the dual nature of EMTs as both payment instruments and crypto-assets.

At the same time, the reliance on existing categories of regulated entities ensures continuity with the pre-existing regulatory system, preserving the role of established financial institutions in the issuance of payment instruments.

EMTs are subject to detailed and prescriptive rules on the composition and safeguarding of backing assets, aimed at ensuring full stability and immediate redeemability.

EMTs must be fully backed (100%) and holders must benefit from a right of redemption at par value at any time.

Article 54 MiCAR introduces a clear quantitative requirement:

• at least 30% of the funds must be held at all times as deposits in separate accounts with credit institutions; and
• the remaining portion must be invested in secure, low-risk and highly liquid financial instruments, with minimal market, credit and concentration risk, and denominated in the same official currency referenced by the token.

This creates a two-tier reserve structure, combining immediate liquidity (cash deposits) with conservative liquid investments.

All backing assets must be:

• segregated from the issuer’s own assets;
• protected against claims by creditors; and
• held within the regulated financial system, typically with authorised credit institutions.

These requirements are aligned with those applicable to electronic money institutions, but reinforced under MiCAR.

Prohibition on Interest

MiCAR expressly prohibits the payment of interest or any form of remuneration linked to the holding of EMTs. The rationale is to ensure that EMTs function strictly as means of payment, and not as investment or deposit-like instruments.

Under MiCA, EMTs and ARTs may be designated as “significant” where, on the basis of specific regulatory criteria set out in the Regulation, they are considered to be of particular importance due to their scale, market penetration, cross-border relevance, or potential impact on financial stability. The assessment is conducted by the European Banking Authority (EBA) in co-operation with ESMA and the relevant national competent authorities, including the Bank of Italy.

Where a token is designated as significant, the issuer becomes subject to enhanced supervision led by the EBA, while the Italian authorities continue to exercise their supervisory powers within their respective areas of competence. Significant EMTs and ARTs are required to comply with more stringent governance, risk management, reporting, and reserve management obligations, reflecting the greater potential impact of such tokens on financial stability and market integrity.