UniCredit cautions Europe may face challenges managing crypto-bank crisis under MiCA regulations

FinanceShareShare this articleCopy linkX (Twitter)LinkedInFacebookEmail

EU deposit insurance (up to €100,000) might not withstand pressure from substantial stablecoin reserve accounts, unlike the comprehensive protection provided by U.S. regulators.

By Francisco Rodrigues|Edited by Nikhilesh De May 28, 2026, 4:50 p.m. 2 min readMake preferred on

Key points:

• Europe currently lacks effective crisis management tools that the U.S. utilized to address crypto-bank disruptions, raising worries about its capability to manage future financial crises.
• EU deposit insurance (up to €100,000) may not adequately handle stress from large stablecoin reserve accounts, in contrast to the robust protection provided by U.S. regulators.
• The MiCA regulation aligns stablecoin issuers with banks, yet without extended deposit insurance, it creates a "double weakness" within the European financial framework.

According to a senior official from UniCredit, Europe may find it difficult to manage financial shocks related to crypto firms and banks due to its limited crisis management tools compared to those employed in the U.S. during the 2023 banking crisis.

Elena Carletti, UniCredit’s deputy vice chair and head of the board’s risk committee, stated that European regulators may not be able to assure crypto-related deposits in the same manner that U.S. authorities did following the failures of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank, as reported by Reuters.

During a banking conference at Madrid’s IESE Business School, Carletti noted that the U.S. government's decision to ensure all deposits, including those belonging to stablecoin issuers, played a crucial role in stabilizing crypto markets amid the crisis.

“The same decision cannot be easily made in Europe,” Carletti remarked.

Her remarks coincide with the implementation of the European Union’s Markets in Crypto-Assets regulation, known as MiCA, which is pushing stablecoin issuers closer to traditional banking structures. This regulation mandates that certain stablecoin reserves be maintained in liquid assets like bank deposits and government securities.

This connection could have posed significant challenges during the March 2023 collapse of Silicon Valley Bank. Circle, the issuer of the USDC stablecoin, disclosed that at that time, $3.3 billion of its reserves were deposited at the bank, leading to a temporary loss of the dollar peg for USDC as investors sought to redeem their tokens.

Subsequently, U.S. regulators guaranteed all deposits at SVB and Signature Bank, including amounts exceeding federal insurance limits, which helped to restore confidence in the crypto sector.

Carletti cautioned that Europe’s deposit guarantee system, which typically covers up to €100,000 ($116,500) per depositor per bank, may not be equipped to handle similar pressures if large stablecoin reserve accounts are affected.

"This implies that we are compelling a certain partnership between stablecoin and crypto providers with the banking sector without the option of extending insurance in the same way, which I view as a dual form of vulnerability," she added.