Search a question

Can derivatives settled in stablecoins—namely asset-referenced tokens or electronic money tokens as defined in Article 3(6) and (7) of Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 on markets in crypto-assets (MiCA) - be classified as financial instruments under Section C of Annex I to Directive 2014/65/EU? More specifically, can such instruments be deemed to meet the criterion of derivatives settled in cash?

In addition, does EU legislation permit the use of unauthorised stablecoins – namely asset-referenced tokens and electronic money tokens that do not comply with Titles III and IV of MiCA – for the settlement of derivatives?

What are the respective responsibilities of offerors, persons seeking admission to trading, operators of trading platforms and other CASPs mentioned in Article 66(3) of MiCA with regard to white papers for crypto-assets other than ARTs and EMTs that were admitted to trading prior to 30 December 2024?

In light of the first subparagraph of Article 16(5) of Directive 2014/65/EU (MiFID II), as well as Article 2(3) and Article 30(1) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/565, can it be affirmed that where a management company has delegated to an entity the performance of crucial elements of the marketing of UCITS funds, including their registration and listing for marketing purposes, the activity of that entity in entering into brokerage and distribution agreements with third-party intermediaries for the purpose of marketing such funds constitutes outsourcing of a critical and important function?

Furthermore, and in the light of the EBA Guidelines on Outsourcing Arrangements (EBA/GL/2019/02), to what extent does the principle of proportionality guide the assessment carried out during the risk evaluation of such outsourcing arrangements? In particular, do factors such as the continuity and duration of the agreement with third-party intermediaries, the scope and materiality of the delegated tasks, and the frequency and regularity of such delegation have an impact on whether the relationship should be qualified as the outsourcing of a critical or important function under the above-mentioned instruments?

As DORA requires financial entities to pre-determine the frequency of audits and inspections on the basis of a risk-based approach, are financial entities not permitted to agree on a maximum audit frequency (e.g. once per year) with their ICT third-party service providers?

We are currently exploring the possibility of presenting future performance in percentage terms within our robo-advisory application. The app provides automated investment recommendations based on client profiling and risk tolerance, and may in the future include visual projections of potential returns.

These projections would be expressed as percentages, clearly labeled as hypothetical, and accompanied by appropriate disclaimers and risk warnings. The format would follow the structure and methodology of performance scenarios as outlined in Annex IV of the PRIIPs Regulation.

In this context, we would like to clarify:

Is it permissible to present future performance in percentage terms if the format aligns with the performance scenarios described in PRIIPs Annex IV?
Would such a presentation be compliant with Article 44 of MiFID II, particularly in digital interfaces?