The new EU Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (“MiCA”) emphasises the prevention of market abuse as one of its five main objectives. This paper critically analyzes MiCA’s provisions on market abuse (Title VI), applying the new rules to the primary categories of crypto-asset market integrity risks to provide a coherent interpretation. In doing so, we consider both the pre-existing legal framework for protecting market integrity, chiefly the Market Abuse Regulation (“MAR”), and the unique features of crypto-asset markets. We find that by largely replicating MAR, MiCA presents “new wine in old bottles” challenges, as crypto-assets introduce novel issues that the legislator attempts to address with a subset of existing tools. The extent to which “decentralized finance” (DeFi) activities will incur liability under MiCA’s anti-market abuse provisions remains unclear, particularly regarding various blockchain network participants. Furthermore, classifying MEV strategies as market abuse may prove difficult. The absence of certain safe-harbor provisions present in MAR, such as those for self-insiders and buy-back and stabilisation schemes, may create uncertainty and potentially chill legitimate market behavior under MiCA.

How does the understanding of law among individuals involved in the crypto phenomenon originate, and how does it impact the trajectory of this innovation? This article examines the legal consciousness of crypto industry participants and state actors, exploring their ideologies on law, property and innovation through extensive document and archival research. It highlights the interplay between the crypto industry’s perception of crypto-assets’ possessing dynamic and self-regulating qualities beyond traditional legal boundaries and the increasing willingness of state actors, despite their reservations, to utilise law as a flexible tool to embrace innovation and promote economic competitiveness. By employing Minsky’s financial instability hypothesis, this article contextualises such legal consciousness within the financial system and contends that collective legal consciousness and associated behavioural dynamics substantially shape state–industry interactions, with the potential to destabilise the financial system. This article sheds light on the challenges presented by crypto-assets and the intricate interplay between law and technological advancements.