Search a question

Which type of rebates or discounts on transaction fees or any other benefits for investment firms acting on behalf of retail clients or opt-in professional clients are out of the scope of the prohibition to receive payment for order flow specified in Article 39a MiFIR?

Does the prohibition of receiving payment for order flow (PFOF) apply to situations where the order is not executed on a trading venue, for instance for products traded over the counter (OTC)?

Does the prohibition of receiving payment for order flow (PFOF) apply to situations where the client provided a specific instruction to the investment firm to execute the order on a particular execution venue?

Under Article 39a of Regulation (EU) 2014/600/EU (MIFIR), are investment firms allowed to use rebates and discounts on the transaction fees of execution venues to lower fees for clients?

Article 5(2) of MiCA states that “when a crypto-asset is admitted to trading on the initiative of a trading platform and a crypto-asset white paper has not been published in accordance with Article 9 in the cases required by this Regulation [emphasis added], the operator of that trading platform for crypto-assets shall comply with the requirements set out in paragraph 1 of this Article”.

In turn, Article 9 requires offerors and persons seeking admission to trading of crypto-assets other than ARTs or EMTs to publish their crypto-asset white papers and any marketing materials.

However, recital 22 of MiCA states that “Where crypto-assets have no identifiable issuer, they should not fall within the scope of Title II, III or IV of this Regulation”.

Does the expression “in the cases required by this Regulation” mean that Article 5(2) exempts operators of trading platforms from the requirements of Article 5 for crypto-assets without an identifiable issuer?