AUSTRIA Trends and Developments Contributed by: Oliver Völkel, CERHA HEMPEL
tured as redeemable claims against a public author - ity without legal tender status, such instruments are better characterised as fiscal tools, functionally close to public debt and to be assessed primarily under EU competence law. Euro-referenced tokens must not encroach upon the EU’s exclusive competence in monetary policy. Instruments designed for public finance management, administrative payments, or targeted public programmes may fall within member state fiscal autonomy, whereas broadly usable pay - ment instruments or substitutes for bank deposits risk interfering with EU monetary policy and would there - fore be legally problematic. Regulatory Treatment of Stablecoins CASPs v issuer Under MiCA, the supervisory treatment of stablecoins depends on the role performed: either as a crypto- asset service provider (CASP) offering services related to the tokens, or as the issuer responsible for their creation and circulation. Both perspectives trigger dis - tinct regulatory obligations, governance expectations, and prudential standards. MiCA regulates a broad spectrum of services in rela - tion to crypto-assets, including custody and admin - istration on behalf of clients, operation of trading platforms, exchange against funds or other crypto- assets, execution of orders, placement, reception and transmission of orders, and advice on crypto-assets. Providing any of these services requires prior authori - sation from the competent authority as a CASP. Appli - cants are subject to general obligations – in particular robust governance and internal control arrangements, prudential safeguards, strict client asset segregation and safeguarding, operational resilience and business continuity requirements – as well as service-specific requirements, for example enhanced safeguard - ing rules for custody or market integrity obligations for trading platforms. The regulatory obligations for CASPs are extensive, and where services relating to ARTs and EMTs are provided, a more specific super - visory focus may arise. While core obligations remain with the respective issuers, the risk profile of stable - coins is still reflected in a heightened due diligence, a sound understanding of reserve and stabilisation mechanisms, and alignment with issuer disclosures.
MiCA establishes a differentiated regulatory regime for the issuing side, focusing on the design, stability and legal robustness of the crypto-asset itself. Respon - sibility and liability for the product and its structural integrity rest with the entity placing the token on the market. Consequently, MiCA does not permit unre - stricted issuance of stablecoins, but first determines which entities are authorised to issue them. EMT issu - ance is reserved to credit institutions and electronic money institutions due to their functional proximity to electronic money, the need for redemption at par and safeguarded backing. ARTs may be issued only by authorised legal persons that require prior authorisa - tion. Credit and e-money institutions benefit from a simplified framework limited essentially to notification and submission of a white paper to the competent authority. White paper MiCA introduces a general obligation to draw up, noti - fy and publish a white paper. Its purpose is to protect prospective retail holders of crypto-assets by ensuring they receive fair, clear and not misleading information. The white paper must outline the characteristics, func - tions and risks of the crypto-assets. The white paper obligation arises in two primary cases: firstly, when crypto-assets are offered to the public, and secondly when crypto-assets are admit - ted to trading on a trading platform for crypto-assets. In practice, the white paper is typically prepared and published by the issuer in connection with the token’s market entry. Stablecoins trigger a general white paper obligation under MiCA. In contrast to other crypto-assets, no exemptions from this obligation apply. Before making any offer to the public in the EU or before admitting such tokens to trading, they must submit the white paper to the competent authority. While for ARTs the white paper forms part of a formal authorisation pro - cess and must be approved, for EMTs a prior notifi - cation to the competent authority is sufficient. The regulatory treatment of EMTs reflects the institutional supervision already applicable to their issuers.
53 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook