Hyperliquid Wants Perps Under MiFID II; Circle Targets MiCA's Bank Deposit Floor

EU closes MiCA review as crypto firms file for major changes

The European Commission closed its public consultation on reviewing MiCA, the EU's crypto asset regulation introduced in 2023, on September 30. Two crypto companies filed responses in the final days of the submission period. The Hyperliquid Policy Center argued that perpetual futures should fall under the EU's older financial derivatives rulebook rather than MiCA itself. Meanwhile, stablecoin issuer Circle asked the Commission to loosen the bank deposit requirements that govern stablecoin reserves.

MiCA, which took effect in 2023, sets out rules for crypto asset issuers, exchanges, and other market participants operating in the EU. The Commission's consultation for reviewing the framework opened on May 20 and the deadline was pushed from August 31 to September 30.

Key points from the filings

• HPC wants perpetual futures classified under MiFID II, the EU's 2014 rulebook for financial derivatives, arguing no new law is needed.
• HPC opposes lumping perps with contracts for difference (CFDs), which the EU's securities watchdog restricted for retail traders in 2018.
• Circle wants the 30-60% bank deposit floor for stablecoin reserves removed and replaced with a less rigid liquidity requirement.
• Circle also wants multi-issuance preserved, the mechanism that lets a single global stablecoin be authorized through both an EU entity and a foreign affiliate.
• The European Central Bank separately called for scrapping the deposit minimums in its own response.
• German exchange operator Deutsche Börse filed on September 29, proposing a separate category for settlement-related products.

What the Hyperliquid Policy Center is asking for

The Hyperliquid Policy Center, a Washington-based group set up in February 2026 and funded with 1 million HYPE tokens worth about $29 million at the time, called its MiCA response its first filing outside the United States.

CEO Jake Chervinsky wrote in the group's letter, dated September 30, that the classification of a financial instrument should follow its economic features, and that the ledger on which it is recorded should not determine how it is regulated. In practice, that means perpetual futures should be governed by MiFID II even though they typically trade on blockchain-based venues.

HPC argued that MiFID II's existing derivative categories already cover perpetual futures, so new legislation is unnecessary. The group also does not want perps treated as CFDs, which are structured so that the provider profits when the client loses. On a perpetual futures order book, HPC noted, the trading venue is not the counterparty.

The group asked the Commission to require trading venues to publish funding methodologies, maintenance margins, and liquidation thresholds in advance. It also wants confirmation that placing a regulated product on a public blockchain does not, by itself, change the product's classification.

HPC pointed to Hyperliquid's HIP-3 markets as an example. According to the filing, a regulated firm could build a market on that infrastructure, set leverage limits and restrict access through an onchain allowlist, then offer it to clients as a regulated product. At one point in late July, HIP-3 markets accounted for 75% of Hyperliquid's overall trading volume, though that share has since fallen to roughly a quarter.

Back in August, HPC made a similar pitch to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, asking them to classify perpetual contracts by their economic structure rather than the technology they use.

Circle's case for looser reserve rules

Circle has issued its dollar-pegged stablecoin USDC and its euro-pegged EURC in the EU through its French entity since July 2024. The company describes itself as the largest e-money token issuer authorized under MiCA. A stablecoin is a type of cryptocurrency designed to hold a stable value, often pegged to a national currency like the U.S. dollar.

Circle's primary target is MiCA's bank deposit floor. Under current rules, e-money token issuers must keep at least 30% of their reserves in commercial bank deposits. If the European Banking Authority deems a token significant, that floor rises to 60%. Circle argued that the rule increases exposure to credit and counterparty risk from the banking sector.

Circle knows that risk firsthand. In March 2023, USDC briefly lost its $1 peg after Circle disclosed that $3.3 billion of its roughly $40 billion in reserves was sitting at Silicon Valley Bank, which had recently collapsed.

Circle also wants two specific caps removed from the European Banking Authority's technical standards. One caps exposure to any single government at 35% of reserves, which Circle said makes it impossible for dollar-denominated tokens to hold mostly sovereign debt such as U.S. Treasury securities. The other caps an issuer's exposure to any single bank at 1.5% of that bank's total assets, a limit that Circle said would require large issuers to maintain reserve relationships with dozens of separate banks.

Another priority for Circle is protecting multi-issuance. According to Circle, multi-issuance is currently the only way tokens like USDC can operate inside MiCA at all. The company cited the Commission's own 2020 impact assessment for MiCA, which warned that banning foreign stablecoins would push EU users to offshore providers that do not operate under MiCA's protections.

The ECB and other responses

Circle is not alone in pushing against the deposit floor. The European Central Bank and the national central banks that make up the European System of Central Banks also called for scrapping the deposit minimums in their response, proposing instead that a set share of reserves mature within one and five working days. Circle said it concurs with the ECB and called for the floor to give way to a less rigid minimum asset liquidity requirement.

The European System of Central Banks also said MiCA needs legal clarification on whether third-country multi-issuer schemes are permissible in the first place.

Deutsche Börse Group filed its response on September 29 and proposed a separate category for settlement-related products. The details of that proposal were not fully described in the reporting.

Why this matters

The MiCA review will shape how the EU regulates some of the largest crypto trading and stablecoin operations active in its market. If HPC's position prevails, perpetual futures could operate on public blockchains under existing financial rules without needing MiCA-specific treatment. If Circle's push for looser reserve rules succeeds, it could affect how other large stablecoin issuers manage their funds in the EU.

The Commission has not yet indicated what changes it will adopt from the consultation responses. The outcomes will depend on the Commission's final assessment and any subsequent legislative action.

Sources

• The Block

Read also: Hyperliquid's USDC Yield Program Gets $14.6 Million for HYPE Buybacks