Article 5(2) of MiCA states that “when a crypto-asset is admitted to trading on the initiative of a trading platform and a crypto-asset white paper has not been published in accordance with Article 9 in the cases required by this Regulation [emphasis added], the operator of that trading platform for crypto-assets shall comply with the requirements set out in paragraph 1 of this Article”.

In turn, Article 9 requires offerors and persons seeking admission to trading of crypto-assets other than ARTs or EMTs to publish their crypto-asset white papers and any marketing materials.

However, recital 22 of MiCA states that “Where crypto-assets have no identifiable issuer, they should not fall within the scope of Title II, III or IV of this Regulation”.

Does the expression “in the cases required by this Regulation” mean that Article 5(2) exempts operators of trading platforms from the requirements of Article 5 for crypto-assets without an identifiable issuer?

Can persons who are authorized in writing by the issuer to offer crypto-assets to the public conduct this activity on a commercial basis, continuously, repeatedly, and possibly for different issuers (whether concurrently or consecutively) without having a MiCA CASP license for the crypto-asset service 'placing of crypto-assets'?

Should the business model whereby a crypto-asset service provider (CASP) provides exchange services but only ever allows clients to collect their balance in fiat currency be allowed?

The regulation applies to managers of alternative investment funds according to Article 2, point (k) of DORA. According to Article 3, (point 44), of DORA a manager of alternative investment funds is defined as “a manager of alternative investment funds as defined in Article 4(1), point (b), of Directive 2011/61/EU”.
According to Article 4(1), point (b), of Directive 2011/61/EU (AIFM Directive) “AIFMs’ means legal persons whose regular business is managing one or more AIFs”. We are of the understanding that Article 4(1), point (b), does not exclude non-EU AIFM. EU AIFM and non-EU AIFM are defined in Article 4(1), point (L) and point (ab). Since DORA only refers to article 4(1), point (b), of the AIFM Directive and not to article 4(1), point (L), we are wondering if DORA applies to both EU and non-EU AIFM as the definition implies.

Is the preparation of a white paper under MiCA mandatory for crypto-asset offerings that fall under the exceptions in Article 4(2) and 4(3) of MiCA, where the offeror only intends to have the token traded on DEX platforms or CEXs in other jurisdictions (i.e. outside the European Union)?