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 ArticleCSSF Updates Status of Probematic EBA Validation Rules for Reporting
In a letter addressed to the industry, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) set out an updated schedule of policy priorities for the banking, insurance, and superannuation industries.
The European Commission (EC) adopted a comprehensive review package of Solvency II rules in the European Union.
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) issued Versions 1.0 of the "Earnings" and "Regulatory Reporting" booklets of the Comptroller's Handbook.
The European Central Bank (ECB) published results of its economy-wide climate stress test, which aimed to assess the resilience of non-financial corporates and euro area banks to climate risks.
The European Banking Authority (EBA) published a report on the use of digital platforms in the banking and payments sector in European Union.
The Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA) published updates on the policy measures that were announced in context of the ongoing pandemic.
The International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA), along with several other associations, submitted a joint response to the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) consultation on preliminary proposals for the prudential treatment of cryptoasset exposures.
BIS published the September issue of the Quarterly Review, which contains special features that analyze the rapid rise in equity funding for financial technology firms, the effectiveness of policy measures in response to pandemic, and the evolution of international banking.
The Basel Committee for Banking Supervision (BCBS) met in September 2021 and reviewed climate-related financial risks, discussed impact of digitalization, and welcomed efforts by the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) Foundation to develop a common set of sustainability reporting standards
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) issued a Cease and Desist Order against MUFG Union Bank for deficiencies in technology and operational risk governance.