So why does the paper argue that Mika's ban on remuneration may be holding Euro stable coins back?

so again um you know as you know under mika you can't stable coin issuers or other e-money issuers and art issuers can't pay interest so like it's forbidden under article 50 and i think it's recital 68 which says that tokens can't act as a store of value right and i think that from from some perspective like that's that's reasonable insofar as you don't want stable coins to quietly become i don't know like you know deposit substitutes and to like drain money out of banks.

But if you look at the timing of that, which is interesting, like since Mika came in, the ECB has hyped rates from like below zero to over 4%.

And, you know, when those rates are high, people obviously notice and then consumers naturally want to move their money towards whatever is going to be paying them.

And I think we've seen this trend in digital asset markets since their inception.

There's this perennial search for yield, and that's not going to go away insofar as you try to regulate it away.

It doesn't work.

But also, I think the broader question is, okay, how does the framework work in practice? And another area that comes up is how is Mika being interpreted across the market so I'd like us to discuss how much of the current challenge is the legal text itself and how much is an even interpretation across across the jurisdictions because having a rule book is one thing but then having a market with legal certainty is another so what are your your thoughts on that part