Erald Ghoos, CEO at OKX, sat down with CoinsPaid Media for a brief but insightful interview, sharing his perspective on the evolution of crypto regulation, the impact of MiCA on the European market, and the opportunities and challenges facing industry players during this transition.
Could you explain how you expect MiCA to influence the industry?
Blockchain and crypto have been around for roughly 15–16 years, depending on where you mark the starting point. Most people refer to Satoshi Nakamoto’s Bitcoin white paper. For much of that period, the industry functioned like a “Wild West” — largely unregulated, with products and services limited only by creativity.
Inevitably, that led to failures. Certain companies and bad actors created situations that essentially invited regulators to step in and impose safeguards to ensure consumer protection. Over the past four to five years, more jurisdictions have begun regulating crypto businesses operating in their markets.
At OKX, we welcomed that shift. We understood early that the future of crypto would be regulated. Anything involving financial transactions, asset custody, or yield generation naturally belongs to a regulated environment. So we adopted a principle: whenever a country introduced crypto rules, we set up a local entity, built a compliance team, and applied for the appropriate license.
How does MiCA change the regulatory landscape in Europe?
Europe used to be highly fragmented. Some countries offered simple registrations, others had full licensing regimes, and several had no framework at all. Eventually, EU regulators stepped in, arguing that the bloc needed a unified, pan-European rulebook. This led to MiCA, which harmonizes crypto regulation across the EU.
We embraced MiCA from day one. It enables us to obtain a license in one member state and passport it across all 30 EU markets. But the region is currently in a transition phase between pre-MiCA rules and full implementation. Grandfathering periods vary widely — some last 6 months, others up to 18 — so while certain jurisdictions are ready, others are still catching up.
The true impact of MiCA will become evident in a year or two, once regulators have removed non-compliant operators and allowed only licensed players to remain. For now, patience is required as national authorities implement the framework.
What do you see as the main opportunities and challenges for the crypto industry during this MiCA transition phase?
The benefits are clear, but there are downsides. A high regulatory bar raises the cost of entry. As one of my fellow panelists said, it’s becoming rare for new players to enter the EU market. Smaller regional competitors are increasingly bowing out, saying the cost and burden are simply too high. It’s hard for them to compete with large global exchanges that have capital, scale, and technological infrastructure.
This is unfortunate because competitiveness drives innovation, better pricing, and improved services — ultimately benefiting consumers. So while I fully support MiCA, I also want to preserve room for innovation and competition.
Looking ahead, how do you expect the regulatory landscape to evolve?
I think things will stabilize in about 18 months to two years. That said, I want to caution regulators against over-regulation or rushing into “MiCA 2.0.” We’re already seeing what’s happening in the U.S. under the new administration, which is adopting a much more crypto-friendly and innovation-oriented regulatory approach.
Europe needs to remain competitive with the U.S. and Asia. If regulation becomes too burdensome, we risk stifling innovation, losing talent, and ultimately creating a brain drain toward those regions. My hope is that Europe strikes the right balance — strong consumer protection without sacrificing competitiveness on the global stage.
