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
