There is a practice in the crypto-asset industry when dealing with client orders which involves the following scenario:
i) a crypto-asset service provider (CASP) providing the service of execution of orders (CASP-broker) receives client orders;
ii) this CASP-broker systematically executes the orders received on behalf of the clients with another entity of the group as counterparty (the “group entity B”) instead of executing such orders on the group’s trading platform for crypto-assets;
iii) group entity B then immediately places an offsetting order to hedge its exposure on the group’s trading platform for crypto-assets.
In this scenario, the price offered to the client by group entity B (through the CASP-broker) is in excess of the top of book price achievable on the order book of the trading platform for crypto-assets to reflect a "guaranteed price" offered to the customer for a limited period, for example 30 - 60 seconds. Group entity B then enters an order on the group’s trading platform on the same side as the customer order would have been had it been executed directly on the group’s trading platform.
However, the price is not really guaranteed: if during the execution of group entity B’s order on the group’s trading platform, the price moves in favour of the client order, group entity B trades at that more favourable price but fills the client’s order at the agreed “guaranteed price”. But, if during the execution of group entity B’s order, the price moves against the client order, the client’s order will be filled by group entity B only if the price movement doesn't exceed the spread applied by group entity B when quoting the “guaranteed price”. Otherwise the order of the client will be cancelled.
In such scenarios, the client pays:
(i) to the CASP-broker: a fully disclosed commission for the “execution of their order”, and
(ii) to group entity B: a spread which is priced in to the “guaranteed price” quoted by group entity B.
Is this scenario compliant with MiCA?

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?

Does article 60 paragraph 5 MICA apply to registered (sometimes referred to as sub-threshold) Alternative Investment Fund Managers referred to in Article 3(2) AIFMD (Directive 2011/61/EU) ?

In Article 67, Paragraph 1, crypto asset providers shall at all time have prudential safeguards as the highest of the following;

- the amount of permanent minimum capital requirements indicated in Annex IV
- one quarter of the fixed overheads of the preceding year, reviewed annually

In Paragraph 3, the method to calculate the prudential requirement of one quarter of the fixed overheads of the preceding year, reviewed annually is stated as;

"Crypto-asset service providers shall calculate their fixed overheads for the preceding year, using figures resulting from the applicable accounting framework, by subtracting the following items from the total expenses after distribution of profits to shareholders or members."

When defining "total expenses" in the quoted sentence from Paragraph 3, does it in fact mean the total costs (fixed and variable overheads) after distribution of profits in the income statement for the preceding year, or is it meant to be the total fixed overheads after distribution of profits?

Can natural persons (self-employed individuals) and trusts/trustees be considered as „other undertakings“ for the purpose of authorisation as a CASP?