European Crypto Initiative
EUCI
L’association a pour but désintéressé de promouvoir : - Les réseaux de valeur ouverts. - Les crypto-actifs ou actifs numériques. - L’innovation. - L’éthique. - Une réglementation équilibrée. Afin de réaliser ce but désintéressé, l’association a pour objet les activités qui suivent, tant en Belgique qu’à l’étranger, pour compte propre ou compte de ses membres : ● Travailler sur les développements politiques qui ont un impact sur le secteur des blockchains publiques, la technologie open source et les actifs crypto décentralisés, ● S'engager avec les législateurs et les régulateurs au niveau européen pour promouvoir les valeurs de l'EUCI et ses membres, ● Éduquer et diffuser du matériel éducatif destiné aux législateurs et aux régulateurs afin de mieux comprendre les valeurs que nos membres défendent.
ID: 676963346236-91
Lobbying Activity
6 Dec 2023
We note that the draft for Supplementing Regulation proposes a time limit of at least four weeks for several actions and notes that the EBA should not be obliged to take into account written submissions received after the expiry of that time limit. We further note that while this is a set minimum, 4 weeks may not be considered sufficient when the nature of actions or tasks, as well as accompanying circumstances, demand longer periods (e.g. 2-4 months) to properly determine all factors and tackle the complexity of the task, collect the resources as well as individuals and organizations whose involvement is needed for such actions to be completed. We observe such considerations and proportionality are relevant and recommend they be made visible in the Supplementing Regulation.
Read full response6 Dec 2023
We believe Article 2(1) points (c) and (d) should further specify what defines the degree of market capitalization or what should be taken as a reference to that. We respectfully ask the regulators to clarify further whether they will take into account the EU market capitalisation data for all quantitative indicators as proposed in Article 43(1)(a) and (c). Further, we wish to understand whether the sub-indicators specified in Article 2(2) points (a) and (b) are taken into consideration equally or not. On both points, we respectfully request the authorities to provide further guidance regarding the calculation of quantitative measures and numerical parameters. This guidance is essential to ensure uniformity and consistency in methodologies employed by diverse industry stakeholders, thus avoiding potential discrepancies. Article 3 points 4 and 5 provide the complexity of the ownership structure as one of the assessment criteria, yet it is not clear what the complexity entails and what contributes to the ownership structure being perceived as complex. Nor is it clear how certain complex structures contribute to the qualifying criteria of the interconnectedness criterion set out in Article 34(1), point (f) of Regulation (EU) 2023/1114. While this draft of Supplementing Regulation provides criteria and indicators the regulators will evaluate, there exists a strong desire within the industry to attain a more precise understanding of the thresholds that would classify a given ART or EMTs, seek enhanced clarity concerning the specific quantitative benchmarks that will delineate the threshold for significance in this context. In addition, they raised concerns regarding the difficulties they may experience with prompt compliance due to the lack of such clarity.
Read full response6 Dec 2023
While we understand the need to cover the actual and estimated costs to be incurred by EBA when performing supervisory tasks, we believe these fees should be capped, deterministic in numbers, and partially levied in the first years to allow both - the regulators and the significant ARTs and EMTs providers to learn about the process together without too heavy of a (financial) burden. We believe such incentives are crucial in times when the issuers of significant ARTs and EMTs are dithering to enter the EU market due to a heavy regulatory burden and lack of concrete clarity on how to comply properly. We again mark that the Supplement Regulations, public consultations, and further guidance are well received, yet - it has not been put into practice. To prevent a situation in which European citizens would no longer have access to any of the ARTs and EMTs because the issuers may find it easier to restrict the EU from accessing their services than complying with the EU regulations, we deem it necessary for the regulator to envision assistance, including reduction, substitution, exemption, remission or deferral of such fees when appropriate and consider extension of deadlines where it became evident that the market participants do not have the opportunity to comply due to reasonable and practical constraints.
Read full response6 Dec 2023
We welcome the identification of factors and criteria that are to be taken into account when assessing whether there is a significant investor protection concern or a threat to the orderly functioning and integrity of markets in crypto-assets or the stability of the financial system in the Union. In particular, we commend the intent to assess the degree of both complexity and innovation of a crypto-asset. While the regulator proposes several characteristics to be evaluated when assessing these two proponents, the current version of Delegated Regulation is too vague because it leaves out the qualitative measures of what is perceived to be a high degree of either complexity or innovation. Further, these two degrees may be interlinked - a high degree of innovation may result in higher complexity. Yet, this relation has not been seen in the Delegated Regulation. It remains unclear whether a high degree of innovation and complexity necessarily results in a more heightened investor protection concern, market integrity, or stability of the financial system in the Union. Further, according to this particular Delegated Regulation, ESMA will take numerous information into account. However, the proposed text does not specify who should provide certain information required for the assessment. While the number of intermediaries involved in an activity, particular features or components of a crypto-asset can be provided by the crypto-asset issuer, the average amount invested by each client or the type of clients involved in the activity may be better if provided by a third party service provider (e.g. exchange or launchpad through which crypto-asset is offered to the market participants). As one possible example, a crypto-asset issuer may not have access to the information or control over who exactly is a token holder. To gain further clarity, it would be beneficial to provide guidelines regarding the responsibilities of CASPs or other entities when providing certain information. Moreover, Article 1(b)(iii) refers to the information about the size of potential detrimental effects, considering the probability, scale, and nature of any detriment. While it is imperative to evaluate risks and continuity of operations, it is important to acknowledge that certain adverse scenarios may not be predictable or assessable with exactitude. In light of this, we strongly recommend that the regulator adopts the wording where factors and criteria concerning the size, probability, extent, and nature of any potential detriment are provided diligently, thoroughly, and within the bounds of what is reasonably foreseeable. In Article 1(d)(ii), the regulator also suggests that the degree of transparency of the crypto-asset considers the use of techniques drawing clients attention but not necessarily reflecting the suitability or overall quality of the product or service. We deem it crucial for the regulator to clarify further the techniques that may be drawing clients attention as it is unclear whether this refers to marketing materials, the functionalities of the crypto-assets, or both. Further clarification is also needed regarding Article 2(i)(i), which refers to the degree of innovation of an ART or EMT related to the structure of the asset-referenced or the activity or practice related to such token, including embedding and triggering. The term Embedding and triggering is unclear and should be technically defined further. Lastly, the Delegated Regulation refers to the number of clients and token holders or market participants when assessing the potential detrimental effects and the presence or absence of liquidity providers or secondary market makers when assessing the costs and ease with which investors can sell the relevant crypto-asset. We deem it crucial for the regulators to consider the nature or type of such individuals and groups, as this can further contribute to the overall assessment of criteria and risks. For example, the to
Read full responseMeeting with Francisco Guerreiro (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur) and Association pour le développement des actifs numériques
13 Sept 2023 · Virtual worlds and blockchain technologies
Response to Virtual worlds, such as metaverse
3 May 2023
Europe is at a crucial point in setting down rules governing the use of innovative technologies such as AI, Blockchain, and quantum computing, especially as it strives to bridge the gap with other jurisdictions that have more fully grasped the countless benefits of Web1 and Web2 innovation. Virtual worlds are rapidly becoming a transformative force in the global digital landscape, with significant implications for the economy, society, and the future of the internet. In 2022, the global metaverse market accounted for EUR 62 billion, exhibiting the potential to revolutionize industries such as e-commerce, education, healthcare, administration, entertainment, and culture. In light of these developments, it is essential for the European Union (EU) to maintain and expand its leadership position in the virtual world domain, building on its strong commitment to digital innovation and open internet principles. The EU has already laid the groundwork for its digital future through key policy frameworks and initiatives, such as the Open Internet, the Digital Europe program, and the Next Generation Internet Initiative. These initiatives emphasize the importance of ensuring an open, decentralized, and user-centric internet, with a strong focus on democratic values, privacy, and security. Further, the Digital Strategy of the Commission seeks to create a Europe fit for the digital age" by fostering digital literacy, strengthening digital infrastructure, and enhancing digital competitiveness. In an effort to fully grasp the potential of the virtual worlds many times referred to as the new internet, it is fundamental for the new generation of citizens panels to take into account the lessons of the world wide web grandfathers, who described one of the key principles of the Internet - its distributed nature. With each iteration of the internet, were one step closer to the original design, a fully-fledged open human-centric virtual world, such as metaverse, where the web is community-owned, community-governed, and freely interoperable, ensuring privacy by design. In this EUCI Response to the EU Commissions Call for Evidence, we elaborate on the various definitions of the metaverse, the risks such innovation may pose, principles we should enshrine as we continue with innovation, and the necessary regulations we shall comply with to ensure continued stability and trust. By this extensive examination of the above-mentioned topics, we hope to contribute to the values expressed by the European Declaration on Digital Rights and Principles. By establishing strong grounds for future development of the virtual worlds, we believe Europe can elevate the vision of an open, free, global, interoperable, reliable, and secure Internet as set out in the Declaration for the future of the Internet. We strongly believe that the European Union must build upon its existing digital policies and initiatives to seize the immense potential of virtual worlds and secure a more democratic, inclusive, and prosperous digital future for all. European Crypto Initiative is a nonprofit independent advocacy organization that aims to shape EU regulations in support of open, permissionless, and decentralized applications. Together with the World Metaverse Council, a platform providing the dialogue for an equitable and inclusive life in the metaverse, we are contributing to the call for evidence in a broader way, trying to cover all the most important policy perspectives needed to be taken into account, but for the purpose of this Response to the Call for Evidence, were mostly referring to the Metaverse and virtual worlds as relying upon and utilizing the technologies.
Read full responseMeeting with Stefan Berger (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur)
3 May 2022 · MiCA