According to article 2 par 1 of DORA AIFM is in scope of DORA, AIF is not defined as financial entity. There are situations when agreement is concluded directly between AIF and ICT service provider. It is obvious that the agreement in such situation should contain elements listed in article 30 of DORA and the risk assessment should be performed by AIFM. But shall such agreement also be:
- included in the register of information in relation to all contractual arrangements on the use of ICT services provided by ICT third-party service providers according to article 28 par 3 and
- notified to competent authority in a timely manner prior of the conclusion of the agreement if the agreement supports critical or important functions?

Some crypto-asset service providers (CASPs) providing custody and administration of crypto-assets on behalf of clients (as defined in Article 3(1)(17) of MiCA) have sister companies that may provide certain services to the CASP’s clients, for instance, liquidity or offer lending services. These sister companies may be using the CASP as their custodian and the CASP will hold their crypto-assets within the same wallet(s) to custody other clients' crypto-assets.

Under MiCA, is a CASP providing custody and administration of crypto-assets on behalf of clients allowed to hold clients’ crypto-assets within the same wallets as crypto-assets belonging to entities of the same group?

Does the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA) allows crypto-asset service providers (CASPs) to use clients’ crypto-assets for pre-funding client orders?

How should the Settlement Rate Option be reported for FX products, such as FX non-deliverable forwards or FX non-deliverable options?

(a) How should counterparties conduct the significance assessment referred to in Articles 9(1)(a) and 9(1)(c) of Commission Delegation Regulation (EU) 2022/1860 (ITS on reporting under EMIR REFIT)?

More specifically, how should the “NumOfAffReports” and the “Average Monthly Number of Submissions” referred to in the formula for significance in Paragraph 392 of the Guidelines on reporting under EMIR REFIT be calculated?

(b) Paragraph 392 of the Guidelines for reporting under EMIR REFIT states that the actual number of reports should be based on the previous 12 months. In the context of EMIR REFIT being applicable as of 29 April 2024, should data from before 29 April 2024 be included in the 12-month calculation?