Two years after the first European legislative proposal on crypto assets was published in recent days draft — which shall be final, but subject to two additional votes — From the list of mica, as a result of tripartite negotiations between institutions. One of the first topics of discussion was that of organization deniednon-fungible tokensAnd the or tokens that feature a unique identification code and are connected to a digital or physical asset, the most popular of which are digitally generated images such as the famous Bored monkeys or Crypto Bank.
Interest towards Nft can be found at Legislative track Controversial and tortuous who lived in these years. Suffice it to recall that NFTs were excluded from the regulatory scope in Mica’s first release in 2020, only to gradually find entry with subsequent modifications.
The presupposition of their initial exclusion lies precisely in their psyche Uniqueness and non-interchangeability, which would have determined its inadequacy at the systemic level. However, the legislator then realized that in practice, some types of NFT circulating in the market did not offer unique items. They are largely interchangeable and are used for purposes other than pure combination, for example as investment or exchange tools. All of this is accompanied by an increasing trading volume and an ever-increasing market capitalization.
Legally speaking, it is common denominator Which led institutions to gradually include NFTs in the regulation, it can thus be determined in mind thatto non-reciprocity of these tokens, ie their uniqueness Hence, they are not interchangeable with others of the same kind. It cannot be guaranteed exclusively at the technical level In order to assign a unique identifier, it is necessary at the same time that the assets associated with it, in turn, be virtually non-fungible. Based on this reflection, NFTs offering fungibility properties were gradually included in the list.
So we witnessed, after the intervention of the Council of Europe, the entry into the field of Mica application from denied Fragmented – That’s saying identical “parts” of the same Nft – assuming that equal fractions of one origin must be considered completely interchangeable. This choice seems justified, given the fact that cleavage defines a species Shared ownership of the same property It effectively involves creating tokens that are only a percentage of properties that do not contain true distinguishing elements.