According to the new article 7a(1) EMIR (as issued by (EU) 2024/2987) the obligation to hold an active account according to the second condition is that a Financial counterparty subject to clearing obligation exceeds the clearing threshold in any of the categories of derivative contracts referred to in paragraph 6 of this Article, in an individual category listed in that paragraph or on aggregate across all categories listed in that paragraph.

Is it only cleared paragraph 6 contracts that should be measured against the clearing threshold according to the second condition? If so, should contracts cleared with EU CCP’s, such as Nasdaq Nordiq or Eurex, or third country markets for which there are equivalence decisions granted, such as Chicago Mecantile Exchange (CME) which is relevant for STIR contracts, be excluded?

Are electronic communications or telephone conversations limited to the provision of information about different investment alternatives subject to the record keeping obligation under article 16(7) of MiFID II when there is no possibility to enter into a trade during that interaction?

Should face-to-face conversations with clients be recorded if the client order is placed in a written form or contract signed during the meeting? 

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?