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
PRA published a set of questions and answers (Q&A) covering common queries regarding residential and commercial property valuations, for the purpose of the Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR), during the period of disruption caused by COVID-19 pandemic.
EBA published guidelines on loan origination and monitoring, which bring together prudential standards and consumer protection obligations, along with the anti-money laundering and the Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) considerations.
EBA published a consultation paper on the draft amended regulatory technical standards on own funds and eligible liabilities.
EBA published a report on convergence of supervisory practices in 2019.
IOSCO proposed updates to its principles for regulated entities that outsource tasks to service providers.
MAS announced that the first phase of the Veritas initiative will commence with the development of fairness metrics in credit risk scoring and customer marketing.
BoE published the Statistical Notice 2020/4 to update the buy-to-let (BTL) Phase 2 and Phase 3 definitions for the Interest Rate Type data item.
FSI published a brief note that examines challenges facing the banking sector as a result of the payment deferral programs put in place to support borrowers affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.
RBNZ published the financial stability report for May 2020. This review of the financial system in the country highlights that the economic disruption associated with COVID-19 will present challenges to the financial system.
PRA published the policy statement PS14/20, which contains the supervisory statement SS1/20 and the feedback to responses to the consultation paper CP22/19 on expectations for investment by firms in accordance with the Prudent Person Principle, or PPP, as set out in the Investments Part of the PRA Rulebook.