The first step is not to look for yield, but to see whether it can be paid
Articles 40 and 50 of the EU MiCA respectively impose restrictions on interest for asset-referenced tokens and e-money tokens, covering issuers and service providers offering crypto-asset services related thereto, and bring certain remuneration or benefits related to holding periods into the analysis. Accordingly, designs such as "awarding points based on the number of days a balance is held" and "third-party funding of payouts" cannot be deemed to avoid the restrictions merely by changing the name or the paying entity.
This does not mean that all rewards worldwide are prohibited by the same rule; rather, the jurisdiction, asset type and method of calculating benefits must first be confirmed. The structures of consumption cashback, one-off promotional rewards and ongoing holding yield may differ, but it is also not possible to promise, without review, that a particular rebranding scheme will necessarily be compliant.
Using balances for investment may change users' rights
If the yield comes from lending, funds, staking or other investments, users no longer face only payment execution risk. It is necessary to confirm whether the assets are transferred, whether users become creditors, who manages the investment, how long exit takes, and whether the relevant product can be sold to the target customers. Article 2 of the EU MiCA sets out scope exclusions for financial instruments and the like, which also shows that a product leaving MiCA does not mean it leaves other financial regulation.
The investor alert issued by the staff of the U.S. SEC specifically explains that crypto-asset interest-bearing accounts differ from bank deposits, and that investment and lending activities may bring risks such as liquidity and institutional failure. That alert is not a new legal rule, but it is suitable for reminding product teams: investment risk must not be packaged as being as safe and available at any time as a payment balance.
"Users can swipe at any time" and "assets have already been lent out" may conflict
Assume that a U-card account by default uses idle stablecoins for an investment that cannot be redeemed immediately, and the user needs to spend the next day. If the project advances funds from its own capital, it bears liquidity pressure; if it directly refuses payment, the original promise of spending at any time may fail; if it uses other customers' funds to fill the gap, more serious problems are introduced. This scenario shows that, for a yield feature, a funds and liability analysis must be done first, and historical returns must not be the only thing looked at.
Even if designed as a standalone product, it must be re-verified
Having users actively opt in, separating investments from payment balances, and clearly disclosing risks are designs worth assessing, but they do not automatically eliminate interest prohibitions, issuance and sales requirements, or investment management requirements. Before launch, product characterization, licensing, customer suitability, asset protection and redemption plans should be independently formed, and exit capability under extreme market conditions should be verified. Where compliance has not yet been confirmed, ordinary payment functions should be retained, and yield should not be made an essential promise for customer acquisition.
Action recommendations
- First check direct interest or yield restrictions by jurisdiction and token category.
- Clearly state the source of returns, the destination of assets, user rights, and allocation of losses.
- Simulate the liquidity impact of concentrated consumption, redemption restrictions, and borrower default.
- Conduct separate access and sales reviews for independent yield products, rather than merely adding a user checkbox.
This content is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Please consult a qualified lawyer about specific matters.
References
- MiCA Article 40: Prohibition of granting interest — EU regulations / ESMA official rulebook
- MiCA Article 50: Prohibition of granting interest — EU regulations / ESMA official rulebook
- MiCA Article 2: Scope — EU regulations / ESMA official rulebook
- Investor Bulletin: Crypto Asset Interest-bearing Accounts — U.S. SEC staff investor education note
