Search a question

Are Crypto-asset service providers that provided their services in accordance with applicable law before 30 December 2024 and which are authorised to continue to do so under the law of a Member State in accordance with Article 143 of MiCA, considered to be crypto-asset service providers under the terms of MICA during the transitional period until they are authorised?

Do firms dealing on own account with regards to crypto-assets require a CASP license?

Would the ‘terms of service’ or any type of non-negotiated standard user agreement between a client and a crypto-asset service provider (CASP) providing custody services constitute a ‘valid agreement’ that ‘expressly provides otherwise’ per the clause in the second subparagraph of Article 75(4) of MiCA?

If so, can this agreement stipulate that a CASP providing custody services may be unable to facilitate the exercise of client rights with respect to a crypto-asset in the event of any modifications to those rights?

What happens to an entity providing crypto-asset services in accordance with applicable law before 30 December 2024 that has not applied for authorisation as a CASP, or whose application for authorisation as a CASP has been refused by the end of the transition period?

Where an entity providing crypto-asset services in accordance with applicable law before 30 December 2024 has applied for but has not been granted or refused authorisation by the end of the transition period, can this entity continue providing services until it is granted or refused authorisation?