Question: How should a CRA ensure a sufficient level of transparency when a credit rating is discontinued in accordance with Article 10(1)?

Question: Is a different level of transparency expected when a credit rating is withdrawn?

Recital 93 of MiCA states that “[…] Many crypto-asset service providers also offer some kind of transfer service for crypto-assets as part of, for example, the service of providing custody and administration of crypto-assets on behalf of clients, exchange of crypto-assets for funds or other crypto-assets, or execution of orders for crypto-assets on behalf of clients […].”

Does Recital 93 of MiCA imply that a crypto-asset transfer offered as part of a crypto-asset service (such as custody and administration or execution of orders on behalf of clients) is to be regarded as a component of such a crypto-asset service and should therefore not be subject to the authorisation requirements under Article 59 of MiCA? Or would such a transfer of crypto-asset still qualify as the separate service of crypto-asset transfer, as defined under Article 3(1), point (26), of MiCA, and be subject to authorisation requirements?

What criteria should be taken into account to determine whether the crypto-asset transfer is a separate service or not?

Please confirm that, if a transfer of crypto-assets is part of a crypto-asset service such as custody and administration or execution of orders on behalf of clients and thus does not constitute the separate service of transfer of crypto-assets, the requirements in Article 82 MiCA apply anyway (including the ESMA guidelines issued according to the mandate in Article 82(2)).

Can entities which were authorised under national law to provide crypto asset services according to a registration regime under the EU AML/CFT framework on 30 December 2024 benefit from the simplified authorisation procedure set out under Article 143(6) MiCA?

Can entities providing crypto asset services registered under national arrangements that transpose the AML/CFT framework into national law benefit from the grandfathering clause set out under Article 143(3) MiCA?

Can financial entities referred to in Article 60 MiCA which provided crypto-asset services according to applicable law before 30 December 2024 rely on the transitional provision of Article 143(3) MiCA even if they are not required to seek an authorisation under Article 63 MiCA?