ESMA published a report presenting advice of the Securities and Markets Stakeholder Group (SMSG) on the steps that ESMA can take to contain the risks of initial coin offerings (ICOs) and crypto assets, on top of the existing regulation. Since there are no obvious stability risks yet in this respect, the report mainly focuses on risks for investors.
The report engages in a fact-finding exercise and provides a taxonomy of crypto assets, based on the Swiss FINMA distinction between payment tokens, utility tokens, asset tokens, and hybrids. To inspire potential regulatory initiatives, the report further provides an overview of the recent ICOs and market developments in respect of crypto assets and of the most important existing regulations for crypto assets, ICOs, and sandboxes and innovation hubs in 36 jurisdictions: EU and European Economic Area member states, Gibraltar, Switzerland, Jersey, Guernsey, and the Isle of Man. The second part of the report offers advice to ESMA on whether and how ICOs and/or crypto assets should be regulated.
First, SMSG advises ESMA to provide level 3 guidelines or to aim at supervisory convergence on the following:
- Interpretation of the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID) definition of transferable securities and clarification on whether transferable asset tokens that have features typical of transferable securities are subject to MiFID II and the Prospectus Regulation
- Interpretation of the MiFID definition of commodities, since that concept is crucial to determine whether an asset token with features typical of a derivative is a MiFID financial instrument or not
- Interpretation of the multilateral trading facility (MTF) and organized trading facility (OTF) concepts, clarifying whether the organization of a secondary market in asset tokens that qualify as MiFID financial instruments is indeed an MTF or an OTF
- When issuers of asset tokens are to be considered to organize an MTF or an OTF in accordance with the above, the MAR applies to such MTFs and OTFs
- In all situations where an asset token is to be considered a MiFID financial instrument, persons giving investment advice on those asset tokens, or executing orders in those asset tokens, are to be considered investment firms, which should have a license as such, unless they qualify for an exemption under MiFID II.
Second, transferable payment and utility tokens are often used as investment products, while the asset tokens may in the future be used as such. In view of the transferability and fungibility of these tokens, risks arise that are very similar to risks on the capital markets (in terms of investor protection and market abuse). SMSG recognizes that ESMA is not competent to change the level 1 MiFID II text listing the MiFID II financial instruments. The SMSG nevertheless urges ESMA to consider sending a letter to EC asking it to consider adding these tokens to the MiFID list of financial instruments. Finally, SMSG opines that, although sandboxes and innovation hubs should not be overly regulated, some coordination is necessary. SMSG advises ESMA to provide guidelines with minimum criteria for national authorities that operate, or want to operate, a sandbox or innovation hub.
Related Link: SMSG Report
Keywords: Europe, EU, Securities, Initial Coin Offerings, Crypto Assets, MiFID II, MAR, SMSG Advice, Regtech, ESMA
Previous ArticleFSB Publishes the G-SIB List for 2018
ECB published a decision allowing the euro area banks under its direct supervision to exclude certain central bank exposures from the leverage ratio.
ESAs launched a survey seeking feedback on the presentational aspects of product templates under the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR or Regulation 2019/2088).
ECB published input of the European System of Central Banks (ESCB) into the EBA feasibility report on reducing the reporting burden for banks in EU.
ECB finalized the guide on assessment methodology for the internal model method for calculating exposure to counterparty credit risk (CCR) and the advanced method for own funds requirements for credit valuation adjustment (A-CVA) risk.
EBA published an Opinion addressed to EC to raise awareness about the opportunity to clarify certain issues related to the definition of credit institution in the upcoming review of the Capital Requirements Directive and Regulation (CRD and CRR).
APRA is consulting on updates to ARS 210.0, the reporting standard that sets out requirements for provision of information on liquidity and funding of an authorized deposit-taking institution.
FED released hypothetical scenarios for a second round of stress tests for banks.
FED is proposing to temporarily revise the capital assessments and stress testing reports (FR Y-14A/Q/M) to implement the changes necessary to conduct stressed analysis in connection with the re-submission of capital plans, using data as of June 30, 2020.
FED adopted a proposal to extend for three years, with revision, the information collection under the market risk capital rule (FR 4201; OMB No. 7100-0314).
EBA published a voluntary online survey seeking input from credit institutions on their practices and future plans for Pillar 3 disclosures on the environmental, social, and governance (ESG) risks.