Are both of the modalities of issuing DLT financial instruments described below allowed under the DLT Pilot Regulation (DLTPR)?

1) Direct issuance of financial instruments on DLT, whereby financial instruments are initially and directly issued, recorded, transferred and stored using a DLT;

2) Issuance of existing non-DLT financial instruments in the form of DLT financial instruments as described in recital 3 of the DLTPR.

Are other issuance modalities of DLT financial instruments possible under the DLTPR?

Are SFT transactions admissible on a DLT MTF/TSS? In particular, should Article 3(1), point (b), DLTPR, which excludes instruments “that embed a derivative or incorporate a structure which makes it difficult for the client to understand the risk involved” be read as also excluding complex transactions like SFTs?

Recital 5 of RTS 15 MiFIR sets out that charging fees in a discriminatory way so as to deter access should not be permitted. Where a trading venue has close links to a CCP, should additional considerations be taken into account when considering whether fees are discriminatory, and if so, which considerations?

Article 11 of RTS 15 MiFIR permits a trading venue to charge fees to a CCP in relation to access to the trading venue, which can include fees charged to cover one-off and ongoing costs. Can a trading venue that has already granted access to a CCP be permitted to charge new fees, whether one-off or ongoing, that were not agreed at the time of access, and if so, under which circumstances?

Article 11 of RTS 15 MiFIR permits a trading venue to charge fees to a CCP accessing the trading venue provided that it is the same schedule of fees and rebates for each CCP with regard to the same or similar financial instruments, unless a different fee schedule can be objectively justified. Where (a) a CCP has close links to a trading venue, (b) such CCP does not pass on the fees charged to it by that trading venue, and (c) the aggregated trading and clearing fees for trades executed and cleared by such trading venue and its linked CCP are therefore lower relative to the fees for the same trades cleared with non-affiliated CCPs, would the schedule of fees and rebates applicable to all CCPs accessing the trading venue be considered to be the same schedule of fees and rebates?