It becomes a regulatory signal.
The Consob decision concerning the $CORONA memecoin is not simply a celebrity-driven controversy. It is a revealing case study of how the European Union is applying the new Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCAR) — and how EU crypto regulation may shape the future of decentralized finance.
This is not just about one token. It is about how Europe defines “digital value.” MiCAR and the Expanding Scope of EU Crypto Regulation The entry into force of Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 — MiCAR — marked a turning point in global crypto regulation.
For the first time, the European Union introduced a comprehensive framework governing crypto-assets, crypto-asset service providers (CASPs), stablecoins, and white paper disclosure obligations.
MiCAR applies broadly. Its structure is residual:
If a digital asset qualifies as a “crypto-asset” and does not fall within specific exemptions, regulatory obligations apply.
And this is where memecoins become legally interesting. What Is a Memecoin, Legally Speaking? Memecoins such as DOGE, SHIB, or PEPE are typically:
Not linked to equity rights Not connected to profit-sharing mechanisms Not designed to provide access to a specific service Often explicitly described as having no intrinsic value They are cultural tokens. Speculative by nature. Community-driven.
Yet they trade on centralized and decentralized exchanges. They have liquidity. They have market capitalization.
From a legal perspective, the crucial question is:
If a token has no intrinsic rights or economic function, can it still fall under MiCAR?
The Core Legal Issue: “Digital Representation of Value” Article 3 of MiCAR defines a crypto-asset as:
“A digital representation of a value or a right.”
At first glance, memecoins — often marketed as “just for fun” — might appear to fall outside this definition.
However, Recital 2 of MiCAR significantly expands the concept of “value.” It clarifies that value includes not only intrinsic value but also value attributed externally by market participants.
In other words:
If buyers are willing to pay for it, it has value. If it has value, it is a crypto-asset. If it is a crypto-asset, MiCAR applies. Even if the issuer explicitly states: “This token has no value.”
This interpretative move shifts the focus from intrinsic features to market perception.
A Regulatory Asymmetry? Here, an interesting tension emerges.
In traditional financial law, the qualification of a financial instrument typically depends on objective structural elements — contractual rights, profit expectations linked to the issuer, governance mechanisms.