- Question ID
-
2024_7172
- Legal act
- Regulation (EU) 2023/1113 (WTR II)
- Topic
- Other topics
- Article
-
2 (1), 3 (10), 3 (14), 3 (18), 3 (24)
- Paragraph
-
2 (1), 3 (10), 3 (14), 3 (18), 3 (24)
- COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs/Recommendations
- Not applicable
- Article/Paragraph
-
EBA/GL/2024/11; Guidelines on information requirements in relation to transfers of funds and certain crypto-assets transfers under Regulation (EU) 2023/1113 (Travel rule Guidelines); Article 4.2 (15).
- Name of institution / submitter
-
Dutch Authority for the financial markets (AFM)
- Country of incorporation / residence
-
Netherlands
- Type of submitter
-
Other
- Subject matter
-
Lightning Network (LN) Transactions and whether they fall within the scope of the TFR and Travel Rule Guidelines.
- Question
-
Do transactions on the Lightning Network fall within the scope of the TFR and Travel Rule Guidelines?
- Background on the question
-
The Lightning Network (LN) is a scaling solution based on the Bitcoin blockchain, also called a Layer 2-solution. It is a decentralized network using smart contract functionality in the blockchain to enable instant (micro)payments across a network of nodes. Two nodes can open a payment channel: a peer-to-peer connection through which bitcoin can be transacted. In their channel, they can transact as fast and often as they want by simply updating their private record. And when they are done, they can close the channel by settling the original on-chain transaction. Only this settlement will be visible on the blockchain. Each node can open as many channels with as many nodes as they want, forming a global web of connections. Through this web, nodes can ‘route’ payments to other nodes, even if they are not directly connected. Nodes: Source: bitcoinvisuals.com Network Capacity Source: bitcoinvisuals.com The LN has been growing rapidly in recent years. This is evidenced in part by the number of nodes and the sum of the credits in all channels between these nodes (also called the capacity of the LN). See also the relevant visuals Bitcoin Lightning Network Nodes Chart - Bitcoin Visuals and Bitcoin Lightning Network Capacity Chart - Bitcoin Visuals.
The LN has gained a foothold worldwide with nodes on every continent. Furthermore, several CASPs have already integrated the option to send bitcoin via lightning to/from their platform. Whereas regular Bitcoin transactions are in principle completely transparent, as they are recorded in the blockchain, this is different for Lightning transactions. Lightning transactions between two lightning nodes take place off-chain, only at the opening and closing of a channel is an on-chain transaction made that reflects the channel’s beginning and end balance. Moreover, indirect lightning transactions that span multiple channels are not traceable in the blockchain.
This raises the question whether transactions on the LN fall within the scope of the TFR. If not, we foresee a potentially undesirable shift of transactions to the LN (and possibly other scaling solutions). Specifically with respect to the LN, the TFR does not, in our view, provide a conclusive answer as to whether LN-transactions fall within its scope. According to Article 2(1) TFR the Regulation applies to transfer of crypto-assets, where the crypto-asset service provider, or the intermediary crypto-asset service provider, of either the originator or the beneficiary has its registered office in the Union. The definition of ‘’transfer of crypto-assets’’ has been set out in Article 3(10) TFR. The given definition raises the question whether units transferred on the LN qualify as transfers of crypto-assets. In our view, the TFR does not provide a conclusive answer to that question.
Please note that this uncertainty about whether Lightning Network transactions fall under the scope of TFR applies to other layer 2 and 3 solutions, as well.
- Submission date
- Final publishing date
-
- Final answer
-
The Lightning Network (LN) is “a decentralized network using smart contract functionality in the blockchain to enable instant (micro)payments across a network of nodes. Two nodes can open a payment channel: a peer-to-peer connection through which bitcoin can be transacted”.
Regulation (EU) 2013/1113 (TFR) applies to “transfers of crypto- assets, including transfers of crypto-assets executed by means of crypto-ATMs, where the crypto-asset service provider, or the intermediary crypto-asset service provider, of either the originator or the beneficiary has its registered office in the Union” (article 2(1) TFR).
Therefore, TFR only applies when at least one crypto-asset service provider (CASP) is involved in the transfer of crypto-assets. The notions of “crypto-asset” and CASP are defined in articles 3(14) and 3(15) TFR by reference to Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 (MiCAR).
The use of the LN does not seem to require the intermediation of CASPs for allowing transactions.
As clarified in recital 22 MiCAR, crypto-asset services provided in a fully decentralised manner without any intermediary do not fall within the scope of MiCAR, and consequently they don’t fall either in the scope of the TFR.
However, the submitter explains that “several CASPs have already integrated the option to send bitcoin via lightning to/from their platform. Whereas regular Bitcoin transactions are in principle completely transparent, as they are recorded in the blockchain, this is different for Lightning transactions. Lightning transactions between two lightning nodes take place off-chain, only at the opening and closing of a channel is an on-chain transaction made that reflects the channel’s beginning and end balance. Moreover, indirect lightning transactions that span multiple channels are not traceable in the blockchain”.
The operation of trading platforms by CASPs constitute a ‘crypto-asset service’ for which CASPs must be authorised under MiCAR. This activity involves “the management of one or more multilateral systems, bringing together multiple third parties exchanging crypto-assets for funds or for other crypto-assets”, as well as the “exchange of crypto-assets for funds and for other crypto-assets” and the “execution of orders for crypto-assets on behalf of clients”.
Consequently, CASPs offering their customers the possibility to transfer crypto-assets with the use of the LN fall within the scope of MiCAR and TFR and should therefore comply with the travel rule requirements (i.e. before initiating or executing any transfer of crypto-assets, CASPs need to ensure that such transfers are accompanied by the relevant information on the originator and the beneficiary). By contrast, the same use of the LN in mere peer to peer transactions not operated by CASPs, does not fall within the scope of MiCAR (recital 22 MiCAR), nor that of the TFR.
Disclaimer: This answer clarifies provisions already contained in the applicable legislation. They do not extend in any way the rights and obligations deriving from such legislation, nor do they introduce any additional requirements for the concerned operators and competent authorities. The answers are merely intended to assist natural or legal persons, including competent authorities and Union institutions and bodies in clarifying the application or implementation of the relevant legal provisions. Only the Court of Justice of the European Union is competent to authoritatively interpret Union law. The views expressed in the internal Commission Decision cannot prejudge the position that the European Commission might take before the Union and national courts.
- Status
-
Final Q&A
- Answer prepared by
-
Answer prepared by the European Commission because it is a matter of interpretation of Union law.
- Note to Q&A
-
Please note that from 1 January 2026, responsibility for all EU-level anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing (AML/CFT) tasks has moved from the European Banking Authority (EBA) to the Anti-Money Laundering Authority (AMLA).
Disclaimer
The Q&A refers 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.