How should the following provision in Art. 3(1)(b) of DLTR (on the admissibility of bonds and other forms of securitised debt) be understood: “[…] excluding those that embed a derivative or incorporate a structure which makes it difficult for the client to understand the risk involved […]”?

For a DLT SS/TSS operator benefitting from the exemption in Art. 5(8) of DLTR, is it possible for them to settle payments using e-money tokens (EMTs) issued by the DLT SS/TSS operator itself or by an e-money institution (as opposed to only settling payments with EMTs issued by a credit institution)?

Can financial entities covered by Article 60(2) to (6) of MiCA apply for an authorization under Article 62 MiCA to provide the crypto-asset services that are not regarded as equivalent for that type of financial entity in accordance with Article 60(2) to (6)?

My questions relate to the scenario where a UK financial services firm, or an offshore financial services firm (e.g. in Guernsey), provides services to an EU financial services firm.
For example, in the scenario where an EU financial services firm outsourced its fund management to a UK asset management firm to manage a fund. Would the EU firm be expected to have sought reassurance from the UK fund manager that the UK firm is also compliant with DORA?
Thanks in advance for your help.

Are there technical circumstances related to securitised derivatives under which it can be considered that a market maker posting one-way quotes is considered to meet the obligations on market making agreements set out in Article 2 of RTS 8?