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?

For complying with the regulatory provisions envisaged by the DORA Regulation, Financial Entities should consider End User Computing (EUC) tools, End User License Agreements (EULA), and the conditions of Shadow IT.
Would it be possible to obtain the regulatory references for these areas?

Table 102 of the Guidelines specifies that GLEIF database should be used to determine the access rights of the relevant members of the ESCB, including the ECB in carrying out its tasks within a single supervisory mechanism, when applying the filtering for the fields 2.144 ‘Reference entity’, 1.4 ‘Counterparty 1 (Reporting counterparty’, 1.9 ‘Counterparty 2’, 1.15 ‘Broker ID’ and 1.16 ‘Clearing member’. Should the authorities in question have also access to the derivatives involving subsidiaries of the relevant entities and, if so, how the access rights should be determined?