With the further development of blockchain technology, Layer 2 and cross-chain infrastructure are becoming increasingly important. They are intended to improve scalability, reduce costs, and ensure interoperability, thereby forming a central foundation for the crypto economy. Layer 2 solutions, blockchain bridges, and governance structures promise efficiency and innovation, but at the same time raise complex regulatory questions. Particularly in the context of the EU’s Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA), it has not yet been conclusively clarified how these technical infrastructures are to be classified – with significant consequences for developers, service providers, and investors.
Layer 1, Layer 2, and the Scalability Challenge
The so-called blockchain trilemma—simultaneously ensuring decentralization, security, and scalability—remains an unresolved challenge. Layer 1 blockchains such as Ethereum offer high security and decentralization, but they have limitations in terms of transaction speed and costs. Layer 2 solutions attempt to address this problem by leveraging the security of Layer 1 while enabling faster, cheaper transactions. Optimistic rollups and zero-knowledge rollups are currently the best-known approaches, which are based on complex cryptographic procedures.
The Role of Bridges
Bridges connect Layer 1 and Layer 2 networks and enable the transfer of tokens and information between chains. One possible technical design is for the assets to be “locked” in a smart contract on Layer 1 and then issued again on Layer 2 in the form of a “new” token. This increases liquidity and usability, but creates new risks. Many bridges are operated by independent development teams or third-party providers and are often centrally managed, at least in the initial phase. Emergency mechanisms such as “kill switches” or upgrade rights are important and can provide security, but the control they entail could hinder decentralization, at least in a regulatory sense.
Decentralization Versus Control
A key challenge is to clearly define the concept of decentralization. Fully decentralized protocols are generally considered to fall outside the traditional regulatory framework and are not covered by the MiCA regulation, for example. In practice, however, most projects retain at least limited control options, for example, via security mechanisms or emergency intervention options such as kill switches or upgrades. Although such mechanisms increase security, they could lead to restrictions on decentralization from a regulatory perspective. This increases the likelihood that supervisory authorities will classify such projects as subject to approval or supervision if certain technical processes are comparable to regulated services. Given that the existing regulatory framework primarily addresses centralized crypto exchanges and brokerage platforms, this can have serious consequences for such projects and hinder innovation.
Potential Regulatory Classifications
The question now arises as to whether the operation of a bridge falls within existing regulatory categories (the MiCA Regulation). Depending on their design, bridges could be associated with the following regulated services, among others:
- Custody services: if assets are deposited in smart contracts and the operator has control over them.
- Exchange services: if the issuance and redemption of tokens is interpreted as an exchange transaction.
- Transfer services: if the bridge enables the transfer of assets between users or wallets.
In particular, the broad definition of “transfer services” in the MiCA Regulation carries the risk that bridges could come close to requiring a license.
Asset-Referenced Token Debate
An additional regulatory question concerns whether Layer 2 “bridged” tokens could be considered asset-referenced tokens. Because they are minted representations of locked Layer 1 assets, they may appear to fall within this category. If interpreted this way, bridges would face significant obligations, including licensing, reserve requirements, and strict compliance standards. However, it is unlikely that EU legislators originally intended to capture technical Layer 2 bridging mechanisms in the same category as stablecoins or global payment tokens. Still, the lack of clarity creates ongoing uncertainty for developers and users.
The Role of Regulatory Guidance
MiCA includes provisions suggesting that purely technical services linked to consensus mechanisms should not be regulated. This could provide a basis for excluding bridges from licensing obligations, but the interpretation remains open. Clear guidance from regulators will be crucial to distinguish between technical infrastructure and financial services. Without such guidance, developers face the risk of unintentionally operating regulated services without licenses, while regulators risk stifling innovation through ambiguity.
Outlook
Cross-chain infrastructure is essential for the further development of the blockchain ecosystem. However, its regulatory treatment is still uncertain. With the increasing importance of bridges and Layer 2 solutions, it is becoming increasingly important to create legal certainty. Clarifications that such essential infrastructure projects are purely technical in nature or clear guidelines that draw the line between them and regulated services would be desirable. Innovation and security are in the interest of all market participants, blockchain users, and other stakeholders.
Autor
Ed Prinz is CEO of neob.ai, founder of moonlytics.ai, moonboard.ai, Chairman of DLT Austria, founder of Web3 Hub Vienna, cryptohub.wien, aihub.wien, digitalassetsforum.wien and co-founder of DLT Germany and DLT Switzerland, founder of viennablockchainweek.org, founder of vienna.finance. With years of experience in research and analysis of tokens, protocols, and markets, as well as in portfolio management, he brings in-depth knowledge in the areas of blockchain technology and EVM. Since 2017, he has been advising blockchain startups and companies and is actively involved in the development of innovative Web3 solutions. In this guest article, he analyzes current developments in the crypto sector.
Disclaimer: Dies ist meine persönliche Meinung und keine Finanzberatung. Aus diesem Grund kann ich keine Gewähr für die Richtigkeit der Informationen in diesem Artikel übernehmen. Wenn du unsicher bist, solltest du dich an einen qualifizierten Berater wenden, dem du vertraust. In diesem Artikel werden keine Garantien oder Versprechungen bezüglich Gewinnen gegeben. Alle Aussagen in diesem und anderen Artikeln entsprechen meiner persönlichen Meinung.
