Search for Q&As

Enquirers can use various factors to search for a Q&A:

  • These include searching by the Q&A ID; legal reference, date submitted, technical standard / guideline, or by keyword if known.
  • Searches can be extended to more than one legal act, topic, technical standard or guidelines by making multiple selections (i.e. pressing 'Ctrl' on your keyboard, and selecting the relevant ones from the drop-down lists by left mouse-click).

Disclaimer:

Q&As refer to the provisions in force on the day of their publication. The EBA does not systematically review published Q&As following the amendment of legislative acts. Users of the Q&A tool should therefore check the date of publication of the Q&A and whether the provisions referred to in the answer remain the same.

Please note that the Q&As related to the supervisory benchmarking exercises have been moved to the dedicated handbook page. You can submit Q&As on this topic here.

Final Q&As Q&As under review Rejected Q&As Archived Q&As All Q&As

List of Q&A's

Own funds requirement for asset-referenced token issuers

Are issuers of asset-referenced tokens, who are exempt from authorization requirement pursuant to Article 16(2) of MiCAR, subject to the own funds requirement pursuant to Article 35(1) of MiCAR?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 2023/1114 (MiCAR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2024_7210
  • Topic: Own Funds (MiCAR)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 21/11/2024

Scope of public offering

"Question: Regarding ARTs or EMTs under MiCAR, what services provided in or into the EU constitute an offering to the public, a seeking admission to trading or a placing of an ART or EMT?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 2023/1114 (MiCAR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2024_7185
  • Topic: Scope and definitions (MiCAR)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 17/01/2025

Passporting procedure for CIs and EMIs issuing tokens under MICAR

Are articles 146 (for credit institutions) and 48(3) (for e-money institutions) to be interpreted as submitting credit institutions and e-money institutions issuing ART/EMT on a crossborder basis to comply with the existing passporting framework set for these categories of establishments respectively by directives 2013/36/EU and 2009/110/EC? 

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 2023/1114 (MiCAR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2024_7168
  • Topic: Other MiCAR topics
  • Date of submission:

Passporting procedure for non-CI ART issuers

Shall NCAs consider that articles 18, 21, 25 and 109 of MICA regulation set a specific passporting framework for “pure” ART issuers where: ART issuers are authorized to market tokens in Member States they declared during the authorization process as soon as they are authorized by home NCAs; within two working days of granting authorization, home NCAs only have to inform host national competent authorities, ESMA, EBA, ECB and competent national central bank of the Member States of the member states where ART issuers intend to market their token ; this information regarding passporting of ART issuers is publicly available on ESMA register? 

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 2023/1114 (MiCAR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2024_7167
  • Topic: Other MiCAR topics
  • Date of submission:

Publication of white papers

Regarding entities exempted from authorisation pursuant to Article 16(2) of MiCAR, they shall notify the white paper to the competent authority of the home Member State, and the NCA is responsible for forwarding on the white paper of these entities to ESMA. However, it is unclear how the white paper is made available to the intended audiences of customers, and other relevant stakeholders and investors. Article 28 on publication of crypto-asset white papers only refers to ‘approved’ white papers (in accordance with Article 17(1) or Article 21(1) of MiCAR), without referring to notified white papers of exempted entities under Article 16(2) of MiCAR. Therefore, does Article 28 on publication of white paper of ART issuers also applies to issuers exempted under Article 16(2) of MiCAR?"

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 2023/1114 (MiCAR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2024_7166
  • Topic: Authorisation of issuers of ARTs and EMTs (MiCAR)
  • Date of submission:

Digital tokens representing ownership of a physical portion of gold

Should a digital token that represents ownership of physical portions of non-specific gold bars be qualified as an asset-referenced token according to Article 3(1)(6) of MiCAR?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 2023/1114 (MiCAR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2024_7114
  • Topic: Classification of crypto assets (MiCAR)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 21/03/2025

Issuers of EMTs and scope of application AML requirements

To what extent should electronic money institutions (EMIs) that issue e-money tokens (EMTs) under MiCAR comply with the obligations in relation to anti-money laundering and terrorist financing under Directive 2015/849/EU (as amended, AMLD5)? More specifically, should holders of EMTs be considered as clients of the EMI within the meaning of AMLD5, so that the relevant KYC requirements apply on an ongoing basis in respect of holders of EMTs (not only at the time of issuing but also following trading on the secondary market)?

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 2023/1114 (MiCAR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2024_7078
  • Topic: Other MiCAR topics
  • Date of submission:

Scope of application of recital 54 of MICAR

Question 1: Recital 54 MiCAR seems to presume that the same ART may be issued by EU and third country entity, when speaking of "Issuers of asset-referenced tokens that are marketed both in the Union and in third countries". Does recital 54 mean a technically same fungible token not (externally) attributable to a particular issuer or does this only mean that the token has the same rights attached and is marketed under the same name but is not technically identical and should be attributable to one issuer (in Union or in third countries)? Question 2: Does Recital 54 MiCAR, while referring to ART issuers and their reserve of assets requirements, also apply to EMT issuers (including cases where no reserve requirements under MiCAR apply) and should it be used to interpret prudential requirements for EMT issuers (including Article 54 MiCAR and EMD)? Question 3: if ever recital 54 was to be extended to all EMT issuers, how would this recital have to be interpreted in relation with article 54, which foresees that EMT issuers should safeguard funds received by issuers of e-money tokens in exchange for e-money tokens in accordance with Article 7(1) of Directive 2009/110/EC? 

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 2023/1114 (MiCAR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2024_7069
  • Topic: Other MiCAR topics
  • Date of submission:

One leg out Multi EMT issuance – legal possibility and related issues

Question 1: Can a technically identical and fully fungible EMT based on a non EU currency be issued by, on one hand, a EU-based entity licensed as an electronic money institution or credit institution (therefore complying with MICAR) and, on the other hand, by an entity based in another non EU jurisdiction and non regulated under EU law?  Question 2: If ever the preceding arrangement was possible under MICAR, then would it be compliant with Article 48(1) MiCAR in case a person on the EU territory was to offer or seek admission to trading on EU markets for tokens issued by the entity not authorised as an electronic money institution or credit institution?  Question 3: [This question is to be read in light of associated QA on scope of recital 54] If ever the preceding arrangement was possible under MICAR, given that this technically identical and fully fungible EMT would freely circulate on the secondary market and would actually be marketed both in the EU and in non EU jurisdictions, should competent authorities apply to this arrangement provisions set by recital 54?  Question 4: [This question is to be read in light of associated QA on scope of recital 54] If ever the preceding arrangement was possible under MICAR and recital 54 could be applied, then would competent authorities have to apply safeguarding requirements for the EU licensed entity based on the volume of tokens this entity issued (as per MICAR article 54) or on the “issuers’ liability towards Union holders”, based on “the share of […] tokens that is expected to be marketed in the Union” (as per MICAR recital 54)? Question 5: In order to mitigate potential regulatory arbitrage and capital flight in the context of a one leg out multi EMT issuance, would it be compliant with MICAR to allow only EU-based residents to present redemption requests to the EU-based entity

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 2023/1114 (MiCAR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2024_7068
  • Topic: Other MiCAR topics
  • Date of submission:

Powers of MiCAR authority to obtain the information needed to assess recovery and redemption plans and possible mechanism for exchange of information with the prudential authority

In cases where the MiCAR authority differs from the prudential authority under CRD, respectively the competent authority for recovery plans under BRRD, does the Regulation ensure that the MiCAR authority is provided with the powers to gather from the supervised entities (in the course of the ongoing supervision) all information that is necessary in order to duly assess the recovery and redemption plans of banks and investment firms? If there is a risk of insufficiency of information at the disposal of the MiCAR authority, what will be the mechanisms ensuring proper access of information by the MiCAR authority to the information available within the prudential authority on the financial indicators and other key metrics for the purposes of assessment of the recovery and redemption plans, as well as whether Member States are expected to implement special measures to ensure the protection of sensitive information? How the flow of information towards the CRD competent authority from the MICAR supervisors should be assured in order for CRD authority to be able to perform on their tasks? 

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 2023/1114 (MiCAR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2024_7067
  • Topic: Recovery plans (MiCAR)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 15/11/2024

Liabilities related to the reserve of assets managed by issuers of asset-referenced tokens in case of resolution of the issuer

Please clarify whether liabilities related to the reserve of assets under Article 36 (2) MiCAR have to be treated as secured liabilities and therefore cannot be subject to write-down and conversion or bail-in in case of resolution in the meaning of the BRRD.

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 2023/1114 (MiCAR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2024_7066
  • Topic: Other MiCAR topics
  • Date of submission:

Can a CASP receive / transmit / execute orders for non-EUR denominated EMTs, whose issuers are not authorised as a credit institution or as an electronic money institution?

Article 48 of MiCA states that: “A person shall not make an offer to the public or seek the admission to trading of an e-money token, within the Union, unless that person is the issuer of such e-money token and: (a) is authorised as a credit institution or as an electronic money institution...”.  The cited part of first paragraph of Art 48 of MiCA allows an interpretation in accordance with which a MiCA registered CASP can still either receive and transmit (to a non EU entity) or execute an order (on a non EU trading platform) to buy or sell a non-EUR denominated EMT whose issuer is not MiCA compliant. Namely, it seems that the provision of either of the two mentioned crypto asset services does not fall either under offer to the public nor under admission to trading.  It is quite clear that the provision of the two described crypto asset services does not fall under “seek the admission to trading.”  Nevertheless, an argument can be made that the provision of the two described crypto asset services  does not fall under “offer to public” as well. Namely, MiCA defines offer to the public “a communication (...) in any form presenting (...) sufficient information on the terms of the offer. When a CASP receives and transmits an order or when a CASP executes it, a CASP usually only receives order instructions and does not provide any information on the asset that will be bought. Consequently, it can be argued, that when acting as described, a CASP does not offer an EMT to public. This interpretation is further supported by the Recital 28. This one states that “The mere admission to trading or the publication of bid and offer prices should not, in and of itself, be regarded as an offer to the public of crypto-assets.”. Therefore, one could argue that a CASP can execute orders for non-EUR denominated EMTs, whose issuers are not authorised as a credit institution or as an electronic money institution.

  • Legal act: Regulation (EU) No 2023/1114 (MiCAR)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2024_7027
  • Topic: Scope and definitions (MiCAR)
  • Date of submission: