Benchby BizLegal AI

Benchmark · EU · v1.0.0-draft

MiCA-Bench

The standard for evaluating AI reasoning on EU digital-asset and financial regulation.

Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 (MiCA) and adjacent EU financial regulationdraft — under legal review

Construction

How this benchmark is built

Every item pairs a realistic prompt with a gold-standard answer grounded in primary authority — statute, regulation, or regulator guidance — plus the failure modes the item is designed to surface (fabricated authority, wrong-jurisdiction transplants, omitted elements, unsound reasoning).

Items are drafted under a documented authoring workflow, authority-checked, and gated behind review by a practising lawyer before any paid use. Versions are immutable; the version you were measured against is named in your report, so results stay comparable over time.

22 of 25 items are held out and never published. The released sample below shows the format and difficulty, not the test.

Registry datav1.0.0-draft

25
Items
22
Held out
6
Practice areas

Difficulty distribution

Foundational5
Applied12
Adversarial8

Released sample · 3 of 25 items

Sample items

mica-001 · scopedifficulty 1/3

A startup plans to offer a crypto-asset in the EU that qualifies as a transferable security. Does MiCA govern the offer?

Gold standard: No. MiCA expressly excludes crypto-assets that qualify as financial instruments under MiFID II. A transferable security is regulated under the existing EU securities framework (Prospectus Regulation, MiFID II), not MiCA. The correct analysis starts with instrument classification, not with MiCA.

Authority: Regulation (EU) 2023/1114, Art. 2(4)(a) · Directive 2014/65/EU (MiFID II), Annex I, Section C — probes: wrong jurisdiction, misstatement

mica-010 · scopedifficulty 3/3

Are NFTs outside MiCA in all cases?

Gold standard: No. Crypto-assets that are unique and not fungible with other crypto-assets fall outside MiCA, but the exclusion is substance-over-form: fractionalised interests, or assets issued in a large series or collection, may be treated as fungible in practice and fall back in scope. A flat 'NFTs are exempt' answer is the misstatement this item probes.

Authority: Regulation (EU) 2023/1114, Art. 2(3), Recital 10-11 — probes: misstatement, bad reasoning

mica-023 · stablecoin_reservesdifficulty 3/3

Compare the reserve treatment of a MiCA e-money token with a US 'payment stablecoin' under the GENIUS Act framework, for an issuer choosing a home regime.

Gold standard: Both regimes require full backing and redemption at par, but the mechanics differ: MiCA routes EMT issuance through credit/e-money institutions with E-Money Directive safeguarding plus MiCA's own-funds and (for significant EMTs) reserve composition overlays, while the US framework centres on a defined class of permitted payment-stablecoin issuers with prescribed reserve assets and disclosure. A competent answer contrasts issuer eligibility, reserve composition limits, and redemption rights, and refuses to treat the regimes as interchangeable.

Authority: Regulation (EU) 2023/1114, Arts. 48-58 · US GENIUS Act (payment-stablecoin framework), reserve and redemption provisions — probes: wrong jurisdiction, omission, bad reasoning

Measure your system against MiCA-Bench.

Request an auditMethodology

Citing this benchmark: “MiCA-Bench v1.0.0-draft, Bench by BizLegal AI (2026-08-16), bench.bizlegal-ai.com/benchmarks/mica-bench”.