3.2 Asset-Referenced Tokens (ARTs): Classification and Requirements
How MiCA and the supervisors' classification test decide when an asset-backed token is an asset-referenced token rather than a financial instrument or an ordinary crypto-asset, why gold tokens sit right on that line, what authorization, own funds, redemption and the interest ban would demand of an issuer, why the significance thresholds and usage caps were written with payment coins in mind, and why the category was still empty on 14 October 2026.
MiCA wrote a category for tokens backed by real-world assets, and almost nobody lives in it. The asset-referenced token, or ART, covers any token that purports to keep a stable value by referencing something other than a single official currency, which on a plain reading takes in tokenized gold, commodity baskets and tokens tied to a pool of assets. Title III of MiCA, which governs ARTs, has applied since 30 June 20241. On 1 September 2026 the European Banking Authority (EBA) counted zero ARTs authorized under it2, and the ESMA register file for ART issuers, retrieved on 14 October 2026, held no entries at all3. For a real-world asset project the ART works less as a destination than as a boundary: the category an issuer either argues its token stays out of, or accepts along with a regime designed around stablecoins.
Section 3.1 mapped MiCA's three token categories, the exclusions in Article 2 that send financial instruments, deposits and funds to other rulebooks, the dates on which each part applied and the supervisors behind them. This section takes the first category in depth. It asks what makes a token an ART, where real-world asset tokens fall against that test, what an issuer inside the category has to do, and why the category has stayed empty. Section 6.1 of the companion paper already quoted the EBA's finding that gold tokens "have proved particularly challenging to classify". Here that finding is the starting point, not the conclusion. The reserve of assets an ART issuer must hold gets only a short mention, because Section 3.7 treats it together with the matching rules for e-money tokens.
Backed by Assets Means ART, Unless Something Else Claims the Token First
MiCA defines an asset-referenced token as "a type of crypto-asset that is not an electronic money token and that purports to maintain a stable value by referencing another value or right or a combination thereof, including one or more official currencies"1. The recitals say how wide that is meant to be. The ART "covers all other crypto-assets, other than e-money tokens, whose value is backed by assets, so as to avoid circumvention and to make this Regulation future-proof"1. And Title III applies "irrespective of how the issuer intends to design the crypto-asset, including the mechanism for maintaining a stable value"1. The drafters built the ART as a net under the e-money token: whatever is asset-backed and isn't a single-currency coin lands in it, unless another rulebook catches it on the way down.
The order of that catch is fixed. The joint guidelines that the three European Supervisory Authorities (ESAs) published on 10 December 2024 set out a standardized test in which exclusions come first4. A supervisor or issuer checks whether the token is a financial instrument, a deposit, funds, an insurance or pension product, or unique and non-fungible, and only if none applies moves on. The next question is whether the token "purport[s] to maintain a stable value by referencing only the value of a single official currency", which makes it an e-money token. If not, the question is whether it does so "by reference to another value or right (or combination thereof), including one or more official currencies", which makes it an ART. Anything left is a Title II crypto-asset4. When respondents asked for more guidance on what "stable value", "right" and "value" mean, the ESAs declined to add any and recalled that the notions of right and value "are to be interpreted broadly"4.
ESMA's guidelines on when a crypto-asset is a financial instrument draw the line between an ART and a derivative, which matters most for real-world asset tokens. Supervisors and market participants should consider "that when the value of a token is established through reserved assets, this token should be considered as an asset-reference token within the meaning of MiCA and not as a derivative". By contrast, "when the value or performance of the token is established by synthetically referencing another asset or right or a combination thereof", they "should analyse whether it should be qualified as a financial instrument"5. A reserve points toward Title III. Synthetic exposure points toward MiFID II.
Put together, a token backed by a real-world asset can land in one of four places, and the design of the holder's claim decides which.
| Token design | Likely treatment | Where this paper covers it |
|---|---|---|
| A unit in a fund, a bond, a share or another instrument, issued on a ledger | Financial instrument, excluded from MiCA | Section 3.5 |
| A token that tracks an asset's price or performance without a reserve behind it | Tested as a possible derivative under MiFID II | Section 3.5 |
| A token backed by a reserve and aiming at a stable value against gold, a basket or a pool | Asset-referenced token under Title III | This section |
| A token with no stable-value aim, such as one framed as ownership of or access to an asset | Title II crypto-asset, on the issuer's own classification | Section 3.4 |
The table reads cleanly. The products don't.
Gold Tokens Show How Thin the Line Is
Gold is the obvious test case because a gold token looks like an ART almost by definition: a reserve of metal in a vault and a token meant to track its value. Section 2.2 of the companion paper called commodity-backed tokens the cleanest live example of a token over a named asset held by a named custodian. The EBA's response to the Commission's MiCA review, dated 24 September 2026, explains why that cleanliness doesn't survive classification. Gold tokens are hard to classify "often due to poor or incomplete information in the issuer's white paper regarding the description of the characteristics of the token", above all the rights a holder receives2. That in turn makes it hard to tell whether the token is a financial instrument, "whether the token represents a right to specific property (in the sense of an identified underlying asset/assets) or to a value", and whether other features matter. The EBA notes that use as a means of payment is not part of the ART definition, though "recitals imply the use may be somehow relevant"2.
The EBA also reports structuring in both directions. Some crypto-assets were designed "to appear as ARTs when, on closer examination, they may be more appropriately classified as something else", and "arbitrage attempts to circumvent the relatively stricter requirements for financial instruments and EMTs, compared to ARTs, have been identified"2. Its list of hard cases reads like a catalog of real-world asset designs: tokens "referencing only shares in a MMF which invests only in cash, cash equivalents and short-dated government bonds", tokens referencing a pool run with "complex hedging and investment strategies" that redeem only in pool assets, tokens "referencing predominantly a financial instrument with only a marginal reference to an official currency", and tokens referencing e-money tokens2.
ESMA's register shows the other direction, toward Title II. Among the white papers notified for crypto-assets other than ARTs and e-money tokens are several precious-metal products, including Gold Token SA's DGLD, notified through the Malta Financial Services Authority, and LCX Gold and LCX Silver, notified through Liechtenstein's Financial Market Authority6. Their white papers show two ways of arguing a token out of the ART category.
Ownership, not stability. DGLD's white paper, notified on 24 July 2026, classifies the token "as a crypto-asset other than an asset-referenced token or an e-money token". It says each token "represents a co-ownership right corresponding to one fine troy ounce of LBMA-certified gold", held by MKS PAMP SA in Swiss vaults7. The argument rests on the next two sentences: "Its function is not to provide price stability, but to serve as a technological means of evidencing and transferring co-ownership rights in the physical gold", and a request for delivery "is not a redemption of, or a claim against, the issuer"7.
A key to something else. LCX Gold's white paper, notified on 7 April 2025, calls the token a utility token and says it "does not fulfill the criteria for an asset-referenced token under MiCAR Article 3(1)(6), as it does not directly reference a value or asset, nor does it aim to stabilize its value"8. It works as an access key to a separate non-fungible token, and "The NFT, not the LCXG token, reflects ownership of the underlying asset". It states that "LCXG tokens themselves are NOT backed by gold". The same document also says "Each token is minted solely against the deposit of 1 ounce of physical gold" and that the number in circulation "will always equal the number of gold NFTs held in reserve"8.
Neither argument has been tested the way an ART application would be. A Title II white paper is notified, not approved. Both documents carry the statement that they have "not been approved by any competent authority", and ESMA's register warns that the white papers it lists "have not been reviewed or approved by any competent authority"9. One detail cuts against the ownership argument: MiCA's own ART redemption right can be met "by delivering the assets referenced by the token"1, so physical delivery does not by itself place a token outside Title III. Whether a co-ownership design or a layered key-and-NFT design holds up is a question for supervisors, and the EBA's account suggests they are still building the case law to answer it. It describes "case repositories for future reference" kept as part of its convergence work2.
Authorization Puts the Classification Question First
Only two kinds of issuer may offer an ART to the public or seek its admission to trading in the EU: a legal person established in the Union and authorized by its home supervisor, or a credit institution that follows a separate notification route1. Authorization, once granted, is valid across the Union. Two exemptions remove the need for it. One applies where the average outstanding value over 12 months "never exceeds EUR 5 000 000" and the issuer is not linked to a network of other exempt issuers. The other applies where the offer is addressed solely to qualified investors and the token "can only be held by such qualified investors"1. An institutional gold or basket product sold only to professionals can therefore skip authorization, but not the white paper. Under either exemption the issuer must still draw up an ART white paper and notify it to its supervisor1.
For everyone else, classification is the first thing the application has to settle. Among 18 items, Article 18 requires "a legal opinion that the asset-referenced token does not qualify as" either an excluded crypto-asset under Article 2(4) or an e-money token1, written to the template in the ESAs' guidelines4. The supervisor then sends its draft decision to the EBA, ESMA and the European Central Bank (ECB). At the supervisor's request, the EBA and ESMA each give an opinion on that legal opinion. The ECB gives one on the risks to "financial stability, the smooth operation of payment systems, monetary policy transmission and monetary sovereignty"1. These opinions are non-binding with one exception: a negative ECB opinion on payment, monetary policy or monetary sovereignty grounds obliges the supervisor to refuse1.
The statutory clock adds up. The supervisor has 25 working days to check completeness, 60 working days to assess a complete file, the three EU bodies have 20 working days to give opinions, and the supervisor then has 25 working days to decide1. That is 130 working days, roughly six months, before any suspension of up to 20 working days while the applicant answers questions. The EBA's September 2026 response describes the real-world version: classification difficulties may be "delaying product launch due to protracted processes involving legal opinions and supervisory dialogues"2.
The detailed rulebook arrived late, too. Title III applied from 30 June 20241, but the Commission's delegated regulation specifying what an ART application must contain was adopted on 5 June 2025 and published in the Official Journal on 15 September 202510.
Credit institutions take a lighter path. They need no separate authorization, but they must have the white paper approved and notify their supervisor at least 90 working days before first issuing, with the same legal opinion on classification1. They are spared the authorization, own funds and qualifying-holding articles, because banking law already covers those matters. The ECB still gives an opinion, and its negative opinion on the same grounds still blocks the offer1.
Inside the Regime, the Issuer Carries Bank-Style Duties
An authorized ART issuer looks less like a token issuer than like a narrow bank for one asset. Own funds must at all times equal the highest of "EUR 350 000", "2 % of the average amount of the reserve of assets", averaged daily over the preceding six months, or "a quarter of the fixed overheads of the preceding year", and they must be Common Equity Tier 1 capital1. On an average reserve of EUR 200 million, the 2% floor alone means EUR 4 million of core capital. The supervisor may raise the reserve-based amount by up to 20% where it sees higher risk, and after the issuer's own stress tests it may require between 20% and 40% more1.
The governance rules follow banking templates. Members of the management body must be "of sufficiently good repute" and collectively competent, and shareholders with qualifying holdings must pass the same repute test1. Anyone crossing 20%, 30% or 50% of the capital or voting rights must notify the supervisor, which has 60 working days to object1. Issuers must identify, prevent, manage and disclose conflicts of interest, in particular those "arising from the management and investment of the reserve of assets", and publish their nature on their website1. A Commission delegated regulation adopted on 27 February 2025 and published on 10 June 2025 sets out what those conflict policies must contain11.
Holders get a claim that most real-world asset tokens outside MiCA don't guarantee. Article 39 gives them "a right of redemption at all times against the issuers", and against the reserve where the issuer cannot meet its obligations. The issuer redeems either "by paying an amount in funds, other than electronic money, equivalent to the market value of the assets referenced by the asset-referenced token held or by delivering the assets referenced by the token", and may not charge a fee1. The issuer must also hold a segregated reserve of assets and keep recovery and redemption plans. Section 3.7 covers those, since the same machinery applies to e-money tokens.
The Interest Ban Closes the Door on Yield Products
Article 40 is short and decisive for real-world assets. Issuers "shall not grant interest in relation to asset-referenced tokens", nor may crypto-asset service providers. The definition of interest is wide: "any remuneration or any other benefit related to the length of time during which a holder of asset-referenced tokens holds such asset-referenced tokens", including "net compensation or discounts" with an equivalent effect, whether paid by the issuer or by third parties1.
That rules the ART out as a wrapper for anything whose point is income. A token that references a Treasury fund and passes on the fund's return cannot be an ART that pays it. The EBA flags exactly this risk. It names tokens "referencing predominantly a financial instrument with only a marginal reference to an official currency", and says such structures "may also undermine the objective of the prohibition of granting of interest under Article 40"2. When the Commission's May 2026 consultation asked whether the prohibition should change, the EBA answered that interest "should continue to be prohibited (for both ARTs and EMTs)"122. Section 4.4 of the companion paper described the same ban on e-money tokens keeping the yield in the tokenized fund rather than in the cash coin. For a yield-bearing real-world asset, the route runs through fund and securities law, which Section 3.5 takes up.
Gold pays no coupon, so the ban costs a gold token little. That is one reason commodities, rather than credit or Treasuries, are the live candidates for the category. The EBA's own list of reference assets in the potential ART cases it has seen starts with "commodities such as gold, financial instruments, real estate performance etc"2.
Significance Thresholds and Usage Caps Were Written for Payment Coins
Title III's heaviest layer is reserved for significant ARTs, and its criteria describe a payment network, not a vault. Article 43 lists seven criteria1:
- more than 10 million holders
- issued value, market capitalization or reserve above EUR 5 billion
- more than 2.5 million transactions and EUR 500 million a day on average
- an issuer designated as a gatekeeper under the Digital Markets Act
- significance on an international scale, including for payments and remittances
- interconnectedness with the financial system
- an issuer that issues another ART or e-money token and provides at least one crypto-asset service
The EBA classifies a token as significant where at least three are met, and supervision then passes from the national authority to the EBA within 20 working days1. A delegated regulation of 22 February 2024 fills in the two qualitative criteria. Its interconnectedness test looks, for ARTs, at the share of non-deposit reserve assets that are derivatives13. A significant issuer's own funds rise to 3% of the reserve, it must let different custodians hold the token, it must manage liquidity and run stress tests, and the reserve must keep deposits of at least 60% of the amount referenced in each official currency1. The EBA told the Commission in September 2026 that it "is conducting the significance assessment process for the first time in 2026"2.
Real-world asset tokens are nowhere near those numbers. Section 4.5 of the companion paper recorded $4.92 billion of distributed commodity tokens on rwa.xyz's league table in late September 2026, for the class as a whole. The EUR 5 billion threshold applies to a single token. An ART over gold or a basket would, for the foreseeable future, be supervised nationally.
The usage cap is aimed even more squarely at payments. Where an ART's estimated daily use "as a means of exchange within a single currency area" exceeds 1 million transactions and EUR 200 million, the issuer must stop issuing it and submit, within 40 working days, a plan to bring use back under both thresholds1. Issuers of ARTs with an issue value above EUR 100 million report holders, value and transaction data to their supervisor every quarter for that purpose1. For investment products the cap is unlikely to bind. The EBA expects that if ARTs come to market their primary use "is likely to be 'investment', rather than as an alternative means of exchange", and adds that using a token as non-cash collateral does not make it a means of exchange2.
An Empty Category Under Review
The count is the plainest fact in this section. The EBA recorded that "As at 01 September 2026, 39 electronic money tokens (EMTs) have been issued under MiCA and 0 asset-referenced tokens (ARTs) authorised pursuant to Title III MiCA"2. ESMA's register page carried a last-update date of 7 October 20269, and its file for ART issuers listed none3. The neighboring category is full. The one built for asset-backed tokens is empty.
The Commission asked the market why. Its consultation of May 2026 put it directly: "After being in effect for close to two years, no ARTs have been licensed in the EU under MiCA. In your view, does this absence primarily reflect low market interest in ARTs or other reasons?"12 The EBA's answer went further than the question. Having concluded that ARTs would mainly be investment products, it wrote that "ultimately it may also be considered whether, in fact, ART is essentially a redundant category and should be assimilated into the concept of 'financial instrument'"2. The same response asks the Commission to harmonize the definition of financial instrument "at the earliest legislative opportunity" and to keep tokenized financial instruments outside MiCA2. The Commission's report on the review is due by 30 June 2027, as Section 3.1 records.
For a real-world asset issuer in the EU today, three practical conclusions follow. First, the ART is rarely the intended destination. Yield products belong in fund and securities law, and the interest ban rules them out of Title III in any case. Second, the ART is still a live risk for anything reserve-backed with a stable-value aim, gold above all. The ESAs read "right" and "value" broadly, and ESMA treats reserve-backed tokens as ARTs. An issuer that files a Title II white paper on its own classification carries the risk of being told otherwise. Third, the classification argument is the first cost, not a formality. Whether it ends in an ART application, a Title II notification or a prospectus, it has to rest on a clear description of what the holder owns and can claim, the information the EBA found missing in gold white papers. Section 3.3 turns to the category that did fill up, e-money tokens, and their role as the cash leg of real-world asset settlement. Section 3.8 returns to the classification choice as the first step of an EU issuer's path.
- MiCA's asset-referenced token covers any token that is not an e-money token and "purports to maintain a stable value" by referencing other assets, and its recitals extend it to all tokens "whose value is backed by assets". ESMA treats reserve-backed tokens as ARTs and synthetic trackers as possible derivatives, so the design of the holder's claim decides the category.
- Gold tokens sit on the line. The EBA wrote in September 2026 that they "have proved particularly challenging to classify" and that arbitrage attempts have been identified, while ESMA's register lists gold products such as DGLD and LCX Gold as Title II crypto-assets on their issuers' own unreviewed arguments that they don't aim at a stable value.
- Authorization puts classification first. An EU-established applicant files a legal opinion that its token is neither excluded nor an e-money token, the EBA, ESMA and ECB give opinions, a negative ECB opinion on monetary grounds forces refusal, and the statutory clock runs about 130 working days before suspensions.
- Inside the regime an issuer holds Common Equity Tier 1 capital of at least EUR 350,000 or 2% of the reserve, gives holders a permanent redemption right at market value or by delivery, and may grant no interest or time-linked benefit, which rules the ART out as a wrapper for yield-bearing assets.
- The EBA counted 39 e-money tokens and zero authorized ARTs on 1 September 2026. The Commission's review consultation asked why, and the EBA suggested the ART may be "essentially a redundant category" to fold into financial instruments, with the Commission's report due by 30 June 2027.