I'm definitely not reading all 168 pages, but the fact that it states clearly on page 1:
At the same time, the EBA and ESMA underlined that – beyond EU legislation aimed at combating money laundering and terrorism financing – most crypto-assets fall outside the scope of EU financial services legislation and therefore are not subject to provisions on consumer and investor protection and market integrity
appears to imply that they have no plans to attempt to regulate protocols like Bitcoin, aside from the usual AML stuff. The focus will definitely be on the stablecoins that claim to be backed by fiat or other assets, because this is the part that requires trust. Trust can be abused, therefore requiring regulation around consumer protection.
In essence, protocols can't lie. Companies can (and often do).
Why would they only go after stable coin and not all crypto assets? If they are only focusing on stable coins then this regulation means nothing at all. There will be other clauses that would indirectly also look into other cryptocurrencies activities
I'm pretty sure when they say it's "
outside their scope", that loosely translates to "
we couldn't even if we wanted to". There's no way for them to regulate Bitcoin in the same way they can regulate a stablecoin.
Think of it this way. They've already got regulations for custodians like exchanges and webwallets. Regulators can help look after your consumer rights and enforce legislation upon those companies when they misbehave. The part they've now realised they are missing is that they don't have sufficient regulations for companies that claim "
our digital asset is backed by X amount of $/€/¥/etc and will be pegged 1:1 to those assets". And, just to be abundantly clear, that's what a stablecoin generally is: a company making a promise and you have to trust them to keep that promise. People can buy those tokens believing that the fiat money is there. But if said company are lying and the funds aren't really there, it could be difficult for regulators to act. So they want to bring in this legislation to help with that.
Bitcoin, on the other hand, is completely different. Bitcoin doesn't make claims about being backed by other assets. There's no company involved who regulators can hunt down and force them to pay out compensation in the unlikely event something somehow went horribly wrong with the protocol. Regulators are totally powerless in that situation. They know there's no point in trying to enforce some regulations that wouldn't actually help them in practice. It would be a waste of their time to even try. So it's "
outside their scope".